ACL independently strong (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

If today's revelations are correct.
It seems it maybe true that ACL can survive without CCFC.

Seems like we as fans now have a choice
Do we analyse the maths of our owners decisions and put pressure on them to accept a sliding scale rent at the Ricoh in line with attendances and like for like rents. Including 80% of F&B.

Do we put pressure on ACL to ensure such an unequivocal offer is made directly to Ms Sepalla.

Or do we support our owners decision to have their own stadium in 3-5 years time.

Personally I think financially it is better for CCFC and our owners if they agree a long term rent deal. With the aim of getting the club into the championship play off positions then try to sell the combined package for 60 million.

Hoping someone will pay 60 million for the premiership dream.

 

---

[Nick]

IF the plans for a stadium is true then I'd support a low rent while it is built and then move to a new stadium.

 

[dongonzalos]

IF the plans for a stadium is true then I'd support a low rent while it is built and then move to a new stadium.

Would you prefer less capacity and better atmosphere than the Ricoh?

Or do you think the remaining 20% F & B is significant to the future of the club?

 

[Godiva]

If ACL now has a business case strong enough to run the venue without ccfc - and in a way that ccfc may still return - then the offer should be 'come back, no rent to be paid, have ACL's share of F/B and only pay the pure matchday costs and pitch maintenance'.
CCC should join in and offer the freehold for the actual costs CCC have had on the Ricoh.

 

[Nick]

I think it really depends on the following.

• If the new stadium exists
• Location of it
• Finance agreement (IF we do rent from a sisu company, how much is it and how does it benefit the club?)

In terms of capacity, I think if it was 17000 - 20000 BUT easily expandable if we got promoted it wouldn't be that much of an issue.

I think it really depends on how it benefits the club.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It would appear, either by the dynamism of it's directors pro-actively, or in response to SISU's actions (take your choice), that ACL have improved their game. They've seemingly grown revenue and reduced reliance on football. Whether you like that or not, it's exactly whet the directors should have done to reduce the potential exposure of the business to behaviour such as that SISU bought to the party in recent times. Despite what many on here laughed off, it would appear there have been plenty of takers for their new business model.

However; think on. ACL's directors have responsibilities to that business; and that business alone. You can apply as much pressure upon them as you wish. Their remit is to act in the best interests of their business; and if recent claims on their financial health are true, then that's not an 'unequivocal' offer to Ms Seppala.

And before the histrionics, this is an obvious outcome of what you sell your family silver to a third party, limited company. They have a primary responsibility to the health of their business, not the best interests of it's tenant

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

If ACL now has a business case strong enough to run the venue without ccfc - and in a way that ccfc may still return - then the offer should be 'come back, no rent to be paid, have ACL's share of F/B and only pay the pure matchday costs and pitch maintenance'.
CCC should join in and offer the freehold for the actual costs CCC have had on the Ricoh.

Wholeheartedly agree on the former. Although if ACL's directors have diversified the business to make it much more rounded and robust, I fail to see what SISU should pick up this gimme for peanuts as part of any freehold transaction?!?

 

[Nick]

It would appear, either by the dynamism of it's directors pro-actively, or in response to SISU's actions (take your choice), that ACL have improved their game. They've seemingly grown revenue and reduced reliance on football. Whether you like that or not, it's exactly whet the directors should have done to reduce the potential exposure of the business to behaviour such as that SISU bought to the party in recent times. Despite what many on here laughed off, it would appear there have been plenty of takers for their new business model.

However; think on. ACL's directors have responsibilities to that business; and that business alone. You can apply as much pressure upon the as you wish. Their remit is to act in the best interests of their business; and if recent claims on their financial health are true, then that's not an 'unequivocal' offer to Ms Seppala.

And before the histrionics, this is an obvious outcome of what you sell your family silver to a third party, limited company. They have a primary responsibility to the health of their business, not the best interests of it's tenant

I agree, with any business they should be able to cope if they lose their main clients and if they have increased it without the club then fair play to them. I can't see anybody expecting them to just give up and go bust.

 

[dongonzalos]

If ACL now has a business case strong enough to run the venue without ccfc - and in a way that ccfc may still return - then the offer should be 'come back, no rent to be paid, have ACL's share of F/B and only pay the pure matchday costs and pitch maintenance'.
CCC should join in and offer the freehold for the actual costs CCC have had on the Ricoh.

That's sounds interesting

I guess for ACL the cost of this and the impact it has in preventing them using the stadium on match days would have to be less than the extra revenue it would give them via publicity.

 

[dongonzalos]

I think it really depends on the following.

• If the new stadium exists
• Location of it
• Finance agreement (IF we do rent from a sisu company, how much is it and how does it benefit the club?)

In terms of capacity, I think if it was 17000 - 20000 BUT easily expandable if we got promoted it wouldn't be that much of an issue.

I think it really depends on how it benefits the club.

I worry a bit about SISU's ability to sell all that for the 100-110 million fee they would need

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I agree, with any business they should be able to cope if they lose their main clients and if they have increased it without the club then fair play to them. I can't see anybody expecting them to just give up and go bust.

I think some time ago I suggested the club should have been offered a sliding scale of rent payable in indirect proportion to ACL's business expanding in a non-footballing direction. In effect giving the club a long rental agreement at nominal, or zero costs; and also reflecting the importance the club had on getting The Arena to where it now sits. Quid pro quo.

Would Joy take it? Even with football-related F&B's and/or sponsorship? Don't reckon so old lad....

 

[oldskyblue58]

just playing devils advocate .......

If ACL is so healthy with good income streams, can use the stadium bowl from time to time at times that suit them, dont have to share usage and income streams, are making good profits from the core business (thats not football btw) etc etc ........ why do they have to discount a rent at all? ACL are not there to benefit CCFC they are there to benefit ACL.

Just to be clear I would like to see some incentive to come back, the priority as a fan is to get our club back at the Ricoh but I think the first move is now in SISU's hands.

 

[skybluejelly]

There is a massive difference between turnover and profit... Just because they have a projected turnover of 13 million..they could still end up making a loss

 

[Nick]

If ACL came out and said "we will give you this as we are doing well" and offered a good deal. I think that would make them look like the "bigger man".

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

There is a massive difference between turnover and profit... Just because they have a projected turnover of 13 million..they could still end up making a loss

Absolutely. You can also increase profits by reducing costs. Increasing turnover will certainly help though.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

There is a massive difference between turnover and profit... Just because they have a projected turnover of 13 million..they could still end up making a loss

Well, yes. But don't forget; their accounts have been signed off by their auditors in the face of this current situation - and they still signed off the accounts, looking forward as a going concern. I don't recall any significant notes in the filed accounts which would insinuate either the auditors thought it would continue to be profitable, or any projected loss was temporary and could be covered from the existing health of the business. As such, you should assume the growth is 'healthy'

 

[RoboCCFC90]

If today's revelations are correct.
It seems it maybe true that ACL can survive without CCFC.

Seems like we as fans now have a choice
Do we analyse the maths of our owners decisions and put pressure on them to accept a sliding scale rent at the Ricoh in line with attendances and like for like rents. Including 80% of F&B.

Do we put pressure on ACL to ensure such an unequivocal offer is made directly to Ms Sepalla.

Or do we support our owners decision to have their own stadium in 3-5 years time.

Personally I think financially it is better for CCFC and our owners if they agree a long term rent deal. With the aim of getting the club into the championship play off positions then try to sell the combined package for 60 million.

Hoping someone will pay 60 million for the premiership dream.

This is my comment from the thread regarding PWKH:

The highlighted part interests me and put that together with the Ann Lucas statement where Ann Lucas didn't rule a sale of the Arena to SISU out, PWKH's comment justify that a sale is possible given the right terms. Like PWKH said it will be difficult, but he was never going to come out on CWR and say the sale of the Ricoh would be easy.

Along with what you have said in your OP Dong, I have seen nothing from Ann Lucas or PWKH in the last two days to tell me that the Ricoh won't be sold at the correct price, PWKH has even said that the sale of the Arena is possible according the first thread, so mmy point is yes possibly independently strong, but willing to sell at the right price.

 

[dongonzalos]

This is my comment from the thread regarding PWKH:



Along with what you have said in your OP Dong, I have seen nothing from Ann Lucas or PWKH in the last two days to tell me that the Ricoh won't be sold at the correct price, PWKH has even said that the sale of the Arena is possible according the first thread, so mmy point is yes possibly independently strong, but willing to sell at the right price.

To be fair the Higgs charity have always said they don't want to be in it long term.

But that is the sale of their share of ACL, not the sale of the Ricoh.

 

[Godiva]

To be fair the Higgs charity have always said they don't want to be in It long term.

But that is the sake of their share if ACL not the sale if the Ricoh.

Can't they sell their shares to CCC?

 

[stupot07]

Would you prefer less capacity and better atmosphere than the Ricoh?

Or do you think the remaining 20% F & B is significant to the future of the club?

The F&B's are next to useless given that somehow IEC only make 10% profit on them (how???) so the c80% revenue would only provide the club with 80k.


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

 

[dongonzalos]

The F&B's are next to useless given that somehow IEC only make 10% profit on them (how???) so the c80% revenue would only provide the club with 80k.


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

So what is the logic for not signing a long term rent deal and spending 30 million on building a stadium and incurring 10 million losses whilst doing so.
I though Mr Fisher stated the rent offer is good the problem is F&B?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Can't they sell their shares to CCC?

Put it all under one roof so to speak?

 

[dongonzalos]

Can't they sell their shares to CCC?

Are the council allowed to own 100% of ACL?
Secondly do they want to?

 

[oldskyblue58]

The F&B's are next to useless given that somehow IEC only make 10% profit on them (how???) so the c80% revenue would only provide the club with 80k.


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

I think that 10% is a misnomer stupot. I thought that was the amount of the profit that ACL would give to CCFC in the deal last January. I dont think it is the margin that IEC make on it

 

[olderskyblue]

I think that 10% is a misnomer stupot. I thought that was the amount of the profit that ACL would give to CCFC in the deal last January. I dont think it is the margin that IEC make on it

Didn't TF say at a Forum that they "only" make 20% margin, and he would expect double that?

 

[shmmeee]

I don't see how, they charge service station prices and employ illiterate teenagers. How the hell do they only have a 20% margin?

 

[torchomatic]

As I just said on another thread, CCC say the Ricoh is fine without the club and according the you the "majority" of fans do not want SISU owning the Ricoh, so both should cut their losses. CCC/ACL get on with doing whatever they want at the Ricoh and CCC should grant permission for the Club to build a new stadium within the City, if possible.

If today's revelations are correct.
It seems it maybe true that ACL can survive without CCFC.

Seems like we as fans now have a choice
Do we analyse the maths of our owners decisions and put pressure on them to accept a sliding scale rent at the Ricoh in line with attendances and like for like rents. Including 80% of F&B.

Do we put pressure on ACL to ensure such an unequivocal offer is made directly to Ms Sepalla.

Or do we support our owners decision to have their own stadium in 3-5 years time.

Personally I think financially it is better for CCFC and our owners if they agree a long term rent deal. With the aim of getting the club into the championship play off positions then try to sell the combined package for 60 million.

Hoping someone will pay 60 million for the premiership dream.

 

[Nick]

As I just said on another thread, CCC say the Ricoh is fine without the club and according the you the "majority" of fans do not want SISU owning the Ricoh, so both should cut their losses. CCC/ACL get on with doing whatever they want at the Ricoh and CCC should grant permission for the Club to build a new stadium within the City, if possible.

Surely the Council can't use personal feelings when it comes to granting permission can they? They can't say no because they don't like them.

Like you say, if ACL is going stronger than with the club then they will be fine without the club and if Lucas' beloved club can come back to Coventry she won't have an issue. Also have to think of the local economy..

 

[covcity4life]

yeh they should give permission for new ground

they are basically saying pay us rent or leave the town, not giving ccfc a chance to sort them selves out financially.

 

[Nick]

they are basically saying pay us rent or leave the town

That is pretty much it isn't it? With a few beloved's in there.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

IF the plans for a stadium is true then I'd support a low rent while it is built and then move to a new stadium.

Too many ifs in that statement.... they wont.. we all know it.

 

[chiefdave]

Surely the Council can't use personal feelings when it comes to granting permission can they? They can't say no because they don't like them.

You're spot on there, they can't even use the fact that there's already a stadium in Coventry against any planning application SISU put in. If they did reject it just because they don't like SISU it would very quickly move beyond the councils control anyway. That's why its never made sense to me when SISU claim they have to have the stadium outside Coventry.

 

[Nick]

You're spot on there, they can't even use the fact that there's already a stadium in Coventry against any planning application SISU put in. If they did reject it just because they don't like SISU it would very quickly move beyond the councils control anyway. That's why its never made sense to me when SISU claim they have to have the stadium outside Coventry.

They can't also say no because of there already being a stadium if they also own it can they? They could say "give us £10000 million a month to play here" but then reject planning permission if they wanted to to make it impossible for them to come back, but as they love the club...

 

[stupot07]

I think that 10% is a misnomer stupot. I thought that was the amount of the profit that ACL would give to CCFC in the deal last January. I dont think it is the margin that IEC make on it

dunno OSB. But the exact wording on the Q and A specifies net profit....did ACL lie to us?

12: £100,000 has been publicised as the value of food and beverage income – is this 50% of the profits i.e. ACL’s half from the EIC joint venture?

ACL: In principle – we have all accepted that more work is needed on the detail of this, and it needs to be agreed with ACL’s contracted partner Compass, so it is not simply in ACL’s gift. Of course match-day income is also influenced by attendances, these we have seen drop from an average of 13,126 in 11/12 to a current year to date average of 9,259

Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903.


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

 

[stupot07]

I don't see how, they charge service station prices and employ illiterate teenagers. How the hell do they only have a 20% margin?

I have absolute no idea, but the figure they gave us in the q and a suggest around 11-12% profit.....


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