Is the first option made up?
The whole thing is made up isn't it? What do you want us to explain?
Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.
And which play offs are you on about? League one or championship?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.
And which play offs are you on about? League one or championship?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Sorry hill I thought we were planning to build our own stadium.
Regarding the first option. It is based on what was offered to the administrator when he was in charge of the club.
With some slight modifications that SISU should try and negotiate a long term rent deal along those lines.
So what needs explaining is how is building a new stadium a better financially viable option for CCFC / SISU than negotiating a long term rent deal.
I'm not trying to ruin your thread, but most of your figures are guesswork and estimations so it can't be answered.
I hope we end up back at the Ricoh for the record though.
That's part of what I don't get.
Are you saying 80% of F&B at the Ricoh
Is significantly worse less than 100% of a 12k stadium?
Unfortunately for SISU I think the only way they are going to get a chunk of their money back is if we are within a realistic shout of the Championship play offs.
The club will need to be not to far off breaking even and within that dream of the premiership.
again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
But 80% of f&b's will.
Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
But 80% of f&b's will.
Can I refer you to my earlier post..::
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.I'm not having a go, I'm just trying to understand your point.
Are you saying that CCFC and ACL (Football related side) combined doesn't make enouge to compete?
No - but the total revenue of ACL would help. What is it they forecast for 2014?
No - but the total revenue of ACL would help. What is it they forecast for 2014?
In terms of up half/top 6 in the championship, yes that's what I'm saying. Our turnover in our last season in the championship was £10.3m, even with our highest attendance income which was £5.7m it would have been £12.1m. To put that into perspective, Norwich had a turnover of £17m in league one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Sorry, now I get what you mean.
Well assuming we were back at the Ricoh, I think we would have enough to get out of League 1.
After that I think crowds would be high for the first few games back in the Championship. Get off to a good start and you keep those fans.
CCFC has been in decline for the past 15 years. When that decline starts to reverse the fans will come back slowly.
We certainly wont do a Norwich or Southampton and do a double promotion. It needs to just be steady growth. That's how JH did it.
so if sh1tsu own the ground, even if they let the club play at the ricoh rent free we wont increase our turnover as all the other stadium revenue (concerts, the surrounding land sale etc. etc.) will go to sh1tsu and not the club, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.
sort of blows the "because of ffp sh1stu must own the ground argument" out of the water doesn't it.
so if sh1tsu own the ground, even if they let the club play at the ricoh rent free we wont increase our turnover as all the other stadium revenue (concerts, the surrounding land sale etc. etc.) will go to sh1tsu and not the club, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.
sort of blows the "because of ffp sh1stu must own the ground argument" out of the water doesn't it.
Oh Ffs, my post had nothing to do with shitsu (should get a couple of 'likes' for that) - I was trying to point out that whoever owns us (fan owned, PH4, or Bill fecking Gates) the long need of additional revenue for the football club. Getting promoted and having some more bums on seats isn't going to be enough to fund a championship promotional pushing side.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
i never said that you did say anything about sh1tsu. i was merely pointing out (using your theory about the rent) that the argument that is being spouted by some about how sh1tsu must own the ground because of FFP rules is blown out the water.
Funnily enough i was just checking out your theory on the tinterweb and i think your right.
and i quote. "The sources of income that count towards the FIFA Fair Play Rules are television rights, gate receipts, competition prize money, sponsorship, commercial activities, other operating income, selling fixed assets and financial income"
i assume concerts and income from hall would come under other operating income, the surrounding potential development land would be covered by selling fixed assets and you could probably put any money making scheme in financial income. all of which would go to the stadium owners, sh1tsu, not the sitting tenant, CCFC.
Now you get it.
Can we agree the club and ACL should be united?
i never said that you did say anything about sh1tsu. i was merely pointing out (using your theory about the rent) that the argument that is being spouted by some about how sh1tsu must own the ground because of FFP rules is blown out the water.
Funnily enough i was just checking out your theory on the tinterweb and i think your right.
and i quote. "The sources of income that count towards the FIFA Fair Play Rules are television rights, gate receipts, competition prize money, sponsorship, commercial activities, other operating income, selling fixed assets and financial income"
i assume concerts and income from hall would come under other operating income, the surrounding potential development land would be covered by selling fixed assets and you could probably put any money making scheme in financial income. all of which would go to the stadium owners, sh1tsu, not the sitting tenant, CCFC.
i agree totally. which is something that will never happen under sh1tsu ownership. as joy confirmed in the les reid interview the ricoh free hold would be owned by sh1tsu not the club. so if she had the opportunity to buy ACL (which would be the lease hold, as i confirmed in my exclusive interview with les reid), you don't really have any other option other than to assume the same would apply. certainly this would be the best return for her investors. when i say investors i don't mean me and you, the paying customers of one of the companies unfortunate enough to be owned by her hedge fund.
basically, we are screwed under sh1tsu ownership regardless of how you try to gloss it up.
I think JS said said 'unite the club and stadium'. Don't be confused if this means have the club in Otium and the stadium interests in ccfc Holdings (as a daughter to Otium). The increased total revenue can be used towards the FFP.
Separating the club from the stadium would decrease the value of both ... as is at the moment. That would not make any business sense for either the club, the stadium, sisu or sisu investors.
if that happened fine. but that wasn't what she said in the les reid interview. so i assume if she did say unite the club with the stadium she meant in the physical sense, not financial.
she really could win over a lot of fans very easily by stating that the club and the stadium will be 1, in every way with no margin for reading anything else into it, she hasn't and i think that tells what will really happen should she ever get her hands on the ricoh free hold.
http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...ive-interview-with-joy-seppala-some-thoughts/Seppala said:
The club needs 100 per cent ownership of the freehold of the Ricoh. If you look back at the history of the club, you can see why this is important
That looks a good plan B should Plan A (Hostile take over of ACL) fail.
again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.
Rental going down from £1.2m per annum to £150.000 per annum won't increase our turnover??? Can you explain that one please,and then add in the additional turnover generating from a massive increase in attendance figures at the RICOH. I'am positive that turnover would be more than quadrupled from that obtained from sixfidles.
again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.
Rental going down from £1.2m per annum to £150.000 per annum won't increase our turnover??? Can you explain that one please,and then add in the additional turnover generating from a massive increase in attendance figures at the RICOH. I'am positive that turnover would be more than quadrupled from that obtained from sixfidles.
i think you might be confusing turnover with profit. FFP rules are based on turnover not profit so within the context of the reply a lower rent wont benefit the club with FFP rules, it will just make the balance sheet look better.
ps:blue:
again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.
Rental going down from £1.2m per annum to £150.000 per annum won't increase our turnover??? Can you explain that one please,and then add in the additional turnover generating from a massive increase in attendance figures at the RICOH. I'am positive that turnover would be more than quadrupled from that obtained from sixfidles.
Have you bothered reading the rest of the thread?
turnover
ˈtəːnəʊvə/
noun
1.
the amount of money taken by a business in a particular period. (I.e. Income)
"a turnover approaching £4 million"
synonymsgross) revenue, income, yield; More
Turnover is income. Lower rent isn't income, therefore lower rent won't increase turnover.
No one has ever argued that turnover won't be much much higher at the Ricoh than at Sixfields, you have completely missed the point of this thread and my posts.
I was talking about being at the Ricoh, and the need to access as much additional revenue as possible in order to be able to compete financially if we have top 6/promotion aspirations in the championship. This is regardless of who own us.
Our turnover for the 2010/11 season was £10.3m, and 2011/12 (according to administrative report) £9.4m (c15k fans) - only Barnsley and Peterborough had lower turnovers. You can add extra revenue for increased crowds but the most we have made is £5.7m in match day receipts - that's £1.8m more than in 2010/11 which would make an estimate of £12.1m (crowds c21k) - we'd have still been one of the lowest turnovers in the league. To put this in to context Norwich on similar crowds had a turnover of £17m in league 1 in 2009/10 - 9 championship clubs had higher turnovers than this in 2011/12 season.
Incidentally, the season we got relegated the 3 promotion sides wage bills were:
west Ham - £42m
Southampton £29m
Reading £27m
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
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?