lewys33
Well-Known Member
We don't get paid enough to know the answer
Although I can say my salary warrants me to say that moving to Northampton to rent wasn't the answer!
Coventry City Council have Failed CCFC (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Samo
- Start date
We don't get paid enough to know the answer
Although I can say my salary warrants me to say that moving to Northampton to rent wasn't the answer!
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
If you were trying to run the club starting afresh, then I think you'd be able to make a profit by accepting a rent of up to £400k. Apart from the interest charges I would imagine staff costs and other overheads are pretty low now.
Obviously SISU want some or all of their investors money back, and that's the problem. Making a small profit each year, and running a relatively successful football club isn't going to get them the money as quickly as they want.
They need to get hold of something that is worth a lot, without paying very much, that's the only way they will recoup some of the money in a short timescale.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Is this really the case? At Sixfields it is for sure but at the Ricoh was there no club presence other than on matchday? What about the club shop and club offices? I'm sure those operating businesses locally can tell us the going rate for the square footage used by the club, you'd really need to take that off if you want to talk about a figure for matches only.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Didn't Tim make a claim that ACL overcharged them for services whilst at the Ricoh?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Regardless of rental level or however owns us, a rent only model leaves us with one of the 3-4 lowest turnovers in the championship based on 15k fans, with 9-10 teams with lower attendances.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
40 million compensation would probably do it if they win the JR.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
What will it be with our own stadium?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I have no idea. You're the maths expert.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This is what doesn't make sense. The vast majority of teams don't have stadiums with the additional facilities the Ricoh has so the extra revenue we're talking about is F&B (off the top of my head wasn't this quoted by ACL as being a profit of 100K) and letting out a couple of function rooms on non matchday. Against that they have the cost of a mortgage and / or ground maintenance so how are we so much worse off than everyone else?
If the figures do work out that owning our own stadium is the way forward then someone needs to start putting this information to fans with some evidence and figures to back it up.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
He probably did, ML certainly did on Friday. I would imagine if ACL weren't charging them in accordance with the contract SISU would have mentioned it at the time.
Generally when billing service charges you'd add a management fee, or sometimes have a minimum or estimated charge for an item to save the expense of calculating each persons element.
I'm guessing this is just spin from ML as if he had a legitimate issue it would have been sorted out. I doubt the charges were anywhere near £7m, so maybe ML should spend his time looking into other important issues.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
He has to get the important things sorted first, if we're paying 2p a page to photocopy instead of 1p the club could be in big trouble!
stupot07
Well-Known Member
If we were, I'd be expecting them to change supplier.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I seriously doubt any lost revenue from not owning a stadium warrants the cost of building or buying one.
We are not in a position to afford either option, and if SISU's investors put the money forward to build or buy one then the interest charges will kill us.
I wouldn't bet on us being in the Championship for a while yet. I don't think the team will be as strong next season.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I niece they were charged a disproportionately high rate and had lodged a claim of £400,000 overpayment.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I'm not betting on it, just pointing out that returning (and I want us to return) on a rent only deal won't make everything rosy again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Move on guys, it doesn't help anything.
What needs to happen next ?
What needs to happen next ?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Wasn't that the Council not ACL. Different companies remember, no connections, move along, nothing to see here.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Er according most on here they are very much the sane company - so no there is a lot to see and in June we will all see it.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Lighten up Mr G, I was having a little jest with you.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Unlike the insane company running the club eh:thinking about:
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
So the club didn't have a copier? Wonder if they had a shredder.
Samo
Well-Known Member
They do as it goes, the administrator wore out the last one while 'investigating'
Can we please stop banging on the about the sliding scale rent we've never seen the details to. Sounds good, but we don't know the detail, we can assume it still would have been £1.2-1.3m in the championship anyway which was way too much. For all we know (and non of us do) it could have been
Championship £1.2-1.3m
PL £2.m
League one £1m
League two £800k.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Then can we still bang on about the rent-free offer made for this season!?
We also know that they were offered £150k for next season so why are you making up these ridiculous figures?
You are making absurd statement "..we can assume it would still have been £1.2-£1.3m in the championship..."
WHY WOULD WE ASSUME THAT? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah. If only there was some way to buy back the revenues we sold at below market value.
Oh, wait.
Seriously Stu, do you not get that the deal for the Ricoh was never supposed to be no revenues? Everyone was waiting for the club to reclaim what's theirs, but they didn't want to. That should tell you something.
Of course the club is viable on a rental deal. No different from anything else. If the rental cost is less than the interest on a mortgage and if the revenues are in place (as there were at the start of the Ricoh project) then why on earth not? If anything £400k/year rent is an absolute steal compared to paying the interest on £30m.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's 4 times the rent of portman road or the city ground - its hardly a steal.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Explain my logic re: sliding scale? Well let's look at what ACL told the Trust as part of Q6, in the Q and A.
6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher.
So we were already in the Championship, so it's reasonable to assume that the 'lower leagues' refers to Leagues one and two. It states that the base rent would have been hover in PL. It didn't mention any changes to the 'current' league (ie the championship) so I can only assume the base rate would remain the same.
It also mentioned escalators for attendance. The were also mentioned further on, as part of the proposed £400k offer:
CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.
Is it also feasible to assume that the sliding scale attendance escalators would have been not dissimilar to the above?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I don't know about the city ground but portman road - I don't think so. Sorry I don't care less about the council and what they've "done" for the club - as someone else said don't dwell on the past (something Schmeee likes to do when it suits) and the future would be far brighter without ACL and its council puppet master. Why not then explore some grounds like Swansea and see how they have prospered (cue a council troll to post an irrelevant link about an eu investigation).
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Shhmeee I've said before the 2 things sisu should have done as soon as they took over was to a) buy back their share of ACL/whole of ACL and 2) reduce/restructure he wage bill and other costs.
Robinson et al, should have let us go into admin.
However we are where we are, and all I'm doing is pointing out that a return on a rental only / no access to additional revenues will not suddenly make everything rosy, whoever owns us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Explain my logic re: sliding scale? Well let's look at what ACL told the Trust as part of Q6, in the Q and A.
6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher.
So we were already in the Championship, so it's reasonable to assume that the 'lower leagues' refers to Leagues one and two. It states that the base rent would have been hover in PL. It didn't mention any changes to the 'current' league (ie the championship) so I can only assume the base rate would remain the same.
It also mentioned escalators for attendance. The were also mentioned further on, as part of the proposed £400k offer:
CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.
Is it also feasible to assume that the sliding scale attendance escalators would have been not dissimilar to the above?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
You realise you are wasting your time don't you, you can bang facts down these people's throats and they just don't listen.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
If it was free do you think the club would come back?
What's the most you would pay if you were in charge?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Do we get our money back on the grotesque over payments? Do we know the small print on matchday costs on these deals?
Thought not.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I'm not defending them, and they weren't even here when this magical sliding scale rent was offered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited: