Capacity in the unlikely hood of a new stadium should be ? (2 Viewers)

[italiahorse]

30,000 in Coventry diminishing by 1,000 every mile outside Coventry, so 15,000 in Rugby Town centre and baselining at 3,000 further afield.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

The club owns the ground don't they, who are they paying rent to? I thought their chairman paid for everything on an interest free loan that has no plan for any repayments and gets written off in a few years.

They bought the 125 year lease for 5.3m in another group company. The operating company pays the property company £1m pa. But it does stay within the group.

They owe the owner something like 134m interest free and it looks like every year he issues shares to cover the losses they make (over 80m shares issued now)

 

[No Way Back]

Every time someone mentions the Butts I still nearly burst out laughing.

 

[torchomatic]

And no revenue. CCFC don't need round the year revenue apparently. We're different from other clubs.

What we need is a bigger ground with a roof and a sliding pitch

 

[covcity4life]

torch why are you avoiding the oggy thread?

 

[martcov]

And no revenue. CCFC don't need round the year revenue apparently. We're different from other clubs.

Interesting. Not heard that. What revenue are we likely to get from the Butts Arena? Please list sources with estimated amounts. Btw, there is no space for a sizeable car park- so parking revenue is a non-runner.

 

[chiefdave]

Interesting. Not heard that. What revenue are we likely to get from the Butts Arena? Please list sources with estimated amounts. Btw, there is no space for a sizeable car park- so parking revenue is a non-runner.

I don't understand this arguement. Why is it assumed we couldn't generate similar revenues to every other club in the country? There's plenty of stadiums with little to no parking, even new stadiums like St Marys and the Emirates.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The Brighton accounts do give an insight in to incomes they get based on average crowds over 27K

Ticketing 10.4m we get and would get this income direct not dependent on ownership of ground but is dependent on capacity
FL and central distributions 4.9m we get or would get this income direct not ground dependent
Commercial sponsorship/ advertising 4.9m we get or would get some of this income we miss out on ground related sponsorship/adverts
Retail 1.3m we have franchised this out and get a percentage
Media 0.5m we get or would get this income direct not ground dependent
catering income 1.3m at present get a percentage of this on matchdays the Brighton figure is from 365 days
Academy grant 0.5m was category 2 status so we would get the same (brighton moved to Cat 1 following training ground build for 32m)
other income 0.1m other income sources that we could get direct perhaps
Women & girls teams 0.1m don't have womens team as part of club do we that contributes income?

Gross incomes excl VAT so any cash flow available to team from say catering would have to account for costs of supply first. Also the size of the crowds makes a difference to some income totals

Brighton summary 2014 accounts
24m income
wage bill 20m
overall loss 10.6m

So with all that going on Brighton are still in the Championship own their ground and with a very rich backer........ they still rack up losses

what are the massive amounts of income that will make a difference to us then that we don't wont get anyway?

 

[chiefdave]

what are the massive amounts of income that will make a difference to us then that we don't wont get anyway?

That is exactly the type of breakdown, with similar for expenditure, that we need SISU to show for both a Ricoh deal and a new stadium so we can actually make a educated choice.

If you compare a season at HR with a season of the Ricoh does it give any indication on what we are losing out on?

 

[martcov]

The Brighton accounts do give an insight in to incomes they get based on average crowds over 27K

Ticketing 10.4m we get and would get this income direct not dependent on ownership of ground but is dependent on capacity
FL and central distributions 4.9m we get or would get this income direct not ground dependent
Commercial sponsorship/ advertising 4.9m we get or would get some of this income we miss out on ground related sponsorship/adverts
Retail 1.3m we have franchised this out and get a percentage
Media 0.5m we get or would get this income direct not ground dependent
catering income 1.3m at present get a percentage of this on matchdays the Brighton figure is from 365 days
Academy grant 0.5m was category 2 status so we would get the same (brighton moved to Cat 1 following training ground build for 32m)
other income 0.1m other income sources that we could get direct perhaps
Women & girls teams 0.1m don't have womens team as part of club do we that contributes income?

24m income
wage bill 20m
overall loss 10.6m

So with all that going on Brighton are still in the Championship own their ground and with a very rich backer........

So, basically the only advantage of us being SISU propco tenants at the Butts would be a share of stadium advertising rights ( some of which we already get ) and a percentage of year round catering revenues. As you say, we need a very rich backer- which we could have whilst bring a tenant at the Ricoh. Rich backer = more important than stadium ownership.

 

[chiefdave]

So, basically the only advantage of us being SISU propco tenants at the Butts would be a share of stadium advertising rights ( some of which we already get ) and a percentage of year round catering revenues. As you say, we need a very rich backer- which we could have whilst bring a tenant at the Ricoh. Rich backer = more important than stadium ownership.

Or we need to generate somewhere in the region of £35m.

 

[oldskyblue58]

That is exactly the type of breakdown, with similar for expenditure, that we need SISU to show for both a Ricoh deal and a new stadium so we can actually make a educated choice.

If you compare a season at HR with a season of the Ricoh does it give any indication on what we are losing out on?

breakdown is nothing like as detailed dave. Split Matchday, catering, other

Also Brighton average crowd was 27k so that affects comparisons

plus i am not supposed to ask questions about such things on here its apparently a silly thing to do

 

[stevefloyd]

Definitely agree to a 2 tier system.. loved the idea at MK

 

[tisza]

breakdown is nothing like as detailed dave. Split Matchday, catering, other

Also Brighton average crowd was 27k so that affects comparisons

plus i am not supposed to ask questions about such things on here its apparently a silly thing to do

if you simplify the catering income to 23 home games (I know it's year round etc.) then with av. crowds of 27k the average SPEND is around 2 pound a person which is what TF told the SCG a couple of years ago.
catering income has always been a bit of a red herring.

 

[oldskyblue58]

if you simplify the catering income to 23 home games (I know it's year round etc.) then with av. crowds of 27k the average SPEND is around 2 pound a person which is what TF told the SCG a couple of years ago.
catering income has always been a bit of a red herring.

roughly apply that to a 15000 average crowd and that's £690k take out the direct costs (as required by FL SCMP calc.) say 50% leaves 345k to put in to the final SCMP calculation, take the relevant proportion allowed at 60% leaves additional SCMP budget limit at 207K. Hardly big numbers.

So it is the sponsorship/advertising associated with the ground which makes the project "work" then?

Doesn't seem to work does it, and the major incomes they get direct in any case

I want the team to succeed, I want to see us promoted, but the financial implications worry me. The owners must have a plan mustn't they?

 

[Captain Dart]

So it is the sponsorship/advertising associated with the ground which makes the project "work" then?

I thought it would have to come from an associated housing or industrial development, which is why a 60 acre site was mooted.

Whatever happened to that idea, is the tiny Butts site (about 7 acres) big enough now?

 

[tisza]

I thought it would have to come from an associated housing or industrial development, which is why a 60 acre site was mooted.

so basically the Swansea model. Albeit likely without Council help.