Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
The cost of the rent is immaterial though, it makes no difference really if its £150k or £1.5 million - SISU are only interested if they can buy the stadium and get their hands on all income streams.
The cost of the rent is immaterial though, it makes no difference really if its £150k or £1.5 million - SISU are only interested if they can buy the stadium and get their hands on all income streams.
What a naïve statement.
The income streams available only amount to £200K max after costs.
Welcome to the party, better late than never.
You are right. People seem to confuse the revenue streams with the profit. I'm sure SISU would like the profit but I reality, the income stream is more valuable with FFP. You could have 10mill revenue stream and make no profit and it would be better Than 1million pound revenue stream which is all profit.
Brighton/Tickle, that's how understand it too. It relates more to FFP, more than any modest profit.
I still think the figures on catering are cooked. The number of people sinking beer and pies at the ground is amazing, and they aren't cheap.
Also, we wouldn't just be talking football-we're also talking other events held at the arena. Few other FL teams have this kind of revenue access and in L1 at least it gives us a potentially huge advantage.
What a naïve statement.
The income streams available only amount to £200K max after costs.
Welcome to the party, better late than never.
With the usual caveat of I wouldn't be comfortable with Sisu having access to this.
I can't believe this still needs explaining to the 'Pie Tax' brigade.
Once SISU have control of it, they will sell the club and stadium combined
Hopefully. It's irrelevant anyway, as it's highly unlikely they'll get control of it.
Match day revenue streams yes, but ALL combined revenue streams are a lot more with the potential to expand them much further. That's what SISU want, to control every aspect of the stadium, not just matchdays. This has never been simply about the rent.
As has been said above, FFP works on turn over, not net profit so the benefit to the club of controlling the revenue streams is vastly important.
Is there not a way of transferring these income streams from ACL as I believe has already been proposed by ACL with some form of cross accounting.
THE ONLY ANSWER
the coucil sell up or become partners in the ground. that is the only option for them and they know it.
they get nothing and face huge amounts of costs, bills and liquidation of acl should they not sell or share.
Sisu will win this - they wil get there 50% at least on thursday and friday. last hour agreement - after they have all shouted and cried a bit - put your house on it
weigh it up guys;
something has to give in this problem. one of them have to bend
Sisu do not need to bend, they have nothing to lose, they just go to sixfields and rebuild a ground. not the best situation but it is the way it is.
The Council/acl well, for them it is different, ACL will fold without the club, they need footbal at the arena, without it its a loss making company big style
then there is a judicial review that could and probably will cost the council (and us) millions of pounds to partake in and pay up on.
then there is the problem of the Ricoh and its uses
in short the council need the footbal club in the ricoh more than the football club needs to be in the Ricoh
THE ONLY ANSWER
the coucil sell up or become partners in the ground. that is the only option for them and they know it.
they get nothing and face huge amounts of costs, bills and liquidation of acl should they not sell or share.
Sisu will win this - they wil get there 50% at least on thursday and friday. last hour agreement - after they have all shouted and cried a bit - put your house on it
It's a shame that the offer made yesterday wasn't made back in January/February, when they mad their "final offer and no more negotiation".
Could have avoided the admin(which ACL forced), possibly have kept Robins, and even made the play-offs.
Wonder why on Earth they had to go "nuclear" over such a relatively small amount in the big scale of things, to only offer a much better deal when it's all a bit late, and could have avoided an awful lot of trouble.
If Sisu had turned down the offer back then that was offered yesterday then they would have rightly been excoriated, but don't think that they would have done to be honest, would have left further room, once mutual trust regained, for future negotiations on ownership and revenues etc.
weigh it up guys;
something has to give in this problem. one of them have to bend
Sisu do not need to bend, they have nothing to lose, they just go to sixfields and rebuild a ground. not the best situation but it is the way it is.
The Council/acl well, for them it is different, ACL will fold without the club, they need footbal at the arena, without it its a loss making company big style
then there is a judicial review that could and probably will cost the council (and us) millions of pounds to partake in and pay up on.
then there is the problem of the Ricoh and its uses
in short the council need the footbal club in the ricoh more than the football club needs to be in the Ricoh
THE ONLY ANSWER
the coucil sell up or become partners in the ground. that is the only option for them and they know it.
they get nothing and face huge amounts of costs, bills and liquidation of acl should they not sell or share.
Sisu will win this - they wil get there 50% at least on thursday and friday. last hour agreement - after they have all shouted and cried a bit - put your house on it
And councils can't loan to companies they're part owners of - right. Still waiting to hear the answer to the question you've never answered about council loans (both Swansea and ours) that I asked you in this thread http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/34156-CVA-meeting-today?p=497773&viewfull=1#post497773 post #143
The truth of it is that it isn't at all one-sided, and both sides potentially have a lot to lose.
with respect GT it is a bit more one sided to sisu than it is to the council. the judicial review is huge .. why are they making it a priority do you think?
It's a shame that the offer made yesterday wasn't made back in January/February, when they made their "final offer and no more negotiation".
Could have avoided the admin(which ACL forced), possibly have kept Robins, and even made the play-offs.
Wonder why on Earth they had to go "nuclear" over such a relatively small amount in the big scale of things, to only offer a much better deal when it's all a bit late, and could have avoided an awful lot of trouble.
If Sisu had turned down the offer back then that was offered yesterday then they would have rightly been excoriated, but don't think that they would have done to be honest, would have left further room, once mutual trust regained, for future negotiations on ownership and revenues etc.
It may be no more so than SISU making the CVA a priority before the first meeting when ACL made no pre-conditions, and I don't expect either of us are informed enough or qualified to make a judgement on that.
i did answer you. your just not listening to anyone but you. they cant loan to a business simply to fight off sisu, thats unlawful, it is not a regeneration loan
It's a shame that the offer made yesterday wasn't made back in January/February, when they made their "final offer and no more negotiation".
Could have avoided the admin(which ACL forced), possibly have kept Robins, and even made the play-offs.
Wonder why on Earth they had to go "nuclear" over such a relatively small amount in the big scale of things, to only offer a much better deal when it's all a bit late, and could have avoided an awful lot of trouble.
If Sisu had turned down the offer back then that was offered yesterday then they would have rightly been excoriated, but don't think that they would have done to be honest, would have left further room, once mutual trust regained, for future negotiations on ownership and revenues etc.
This is what i don't get, there are many on here who tell us that the Ricoh can't survive without the football club, but they seem to believe that it can if the club are allowed to play there for nothing. Both scenario's result in no money for ACL yet one breaks there business and one doesn't, i don't get it !!!So if they managed to get it down to like £75,000 and then spent more on players and invested it in the club / team, would that not be classed as an amazing bit of business?
No you didn't answer why where all parties have agreed with the loan in both cases, Swansea is different from us. Who said the £14M was to fight off SISU? Only Young Timothy has made any noises in that direction by cliaming but not producing any evidence that they were in it with the council.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?