Grendel
Well-Known Member
Are you a fan or not?
Do ACL need us or not? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Black6Osprey
- Start date
Are you a fan or not?
cloughie
Well-Known Member
get your facts right 17% of income not profit
Not got a problem with the football club owning the ricoh, but sisu is where we will be screwed if they ever own the ricoh via the club
Official Away Travel
New Member
ACL took the loan out to help the bloody club!!!!!! Cus yet again it can't manage it's own finances. The club sold its shares in the arena for £6million in 2004/2005! Why aren't people asking where this money went????
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Are you a fan or not?
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Exactly!! We have been asking, but we will never know! Instead a lot of people forget the state the club has been in for a long time!! It is ludicrous to lay the blame at the feet of SISU.
As for your previous comment, no other owner is going to come in and pay 1.2M a year in rent, so we may as well shut the club down. They too would also seek a reduction in rent something a lot of supporters do not agree with, so they would be doomed from the start.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think most people on here will be celebrating if we shut the club down. They are so anti-SISU they fail to see that they are the only game in town. No one else would pay anything like the rent ACL have even agreed to settle at. People on here are seriously deluded and are like Lemmings ready to throw themselves off the cliff.
Official Away Travel
New Member
Yes I am - but I see for what it. It's all smoke and mirrors from Tim and his timmys tales.
I want the club to succeed. There are people waiting in the wings to rescue the club when the time is right. But all of this is happening for a reason, it needs to run its course but it will get better.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So the people in the wings will pay £1.25 million rent a year will they?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No one. But as long as we are extinct who cares? SISU have gone. Losing the football club is a tiny price to pay.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Some peoples stance on this bewilder me
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
It's only my view on this, but a lot of posters on here seem to miss an important point - even if the city played for free, at the Ricoh, we would still be making a loss.
So, please stop blaming our financial state on ACL, it is just smoke and mirrors by Fisher etc.
Why, if two out of three CCFC directors voted to accept the latest offer from ACL, did Fisher overrule them?
Whatever the rent, we still need to trim our operating budget by a considerable amount. why is this necessary? - because our income has reduced massively, as a result of relegation......why did we get relegated?...because we sold a few half reasonable players, and failed to replace a couple of important ones....who made those decisions..?......
Ok, so we keep tracing the mistakes backwards, there are many who are culpable in our club's demise. Arguably, however, many of those wanted to see the sky blues do well, where as the current owners have little or no interest in the long term success of the club. Lets not forget, before Sisu came here, they tried to buy Man City, Villa, and Southampton , I believe. They failed in those attempts...why? Possibly, there were people who understood what Sisu were all about, and hence were not prepared to compromise the future of their clubs, despite the need for 'investment'. Sadly, we were not in a strong position, and yielded to the prospect of a more 'secure' or certain future.
At that time, Sisu had no regard for the sentimental or emotional value of shares, and demanded that they would only invest in the club if they had complete control...and everyone should handover those shares for free. Now, it would seem, the boot is on the other foot....the club is, again, worthless in collateral terms, despite the fact that we have seen the rise in value of numerous young players over the last five years, all of which have been lost at undervalued sums to other clubs.
In the meantime, Sisu has chosen to appoint a string of unsuccessful, yet overpaid, executives and consultants in numerous roles, all of which have helped drain the club of resources that far out way the cost of the Ricoh rent, which Sisu unlawfully withhold..
There are some on here who fail to see beyond the headlines, or are too drawn in by the Sisu spin, in my opinion of course. Then there are others who seem so reluctant to accept the facts and figures, that we are justified in questioning their authenticity as 'ordinary' fans.
Whilst on my soapbox, can I just add, that there is a significant part of the fan base that comes from outside the city boundary, and hence are not city rate payers. this makes the % of ratepayers, who are city fans, even smaller than that estimated in some of these discussions., which further undermines the arguments of Grendel and co.........it is illegal for the council to fund an independent sports entity, from public funds. The rent payable to ACL is part of a commercial agreement that facilitated the building/development of the Arena as a facility for the city of Coventry, and enabled our team to play there. it did not permit the council to subsidise, directly or indirectly, the operating losses of the football club.
So, please stop blaming our financial state on ACL, it is just smoke and mirrors by Fisher etc.
Why, if two out of three CCFC directors voted to accept the latest offer from ACL, did Fisher overrule them?
Whatever the rent, we still need to trim our operating budget by a considerable amount. why is this necessary? - because our income has reduced massively, as a result of relegation......why did we get relegated?...because we sold a few half reasonable players, and failed to replace a couple of important ones....who made those decisions..?......
Ok, so we keep tracing the mistakes backwards, there are many who are culpable in our club's demise. Arguably, however, many of those wanted to see the sky blues do well, where as the current owners have little or no interest in the long term success of the club. Lets not forget, before Sisu came here, they tried to buy Man City, Villa, and Southampton , I believe. They failed in those attempts...why? Possibly, there were people who understood what Sisu were all about, and hence were not prepared to compromise the future of their clubs, despite the need for 'investment'. Sadly, we were not in a strong position, and yielded to the prospect of a more 'secure' or certain future.
At that time, Sisu had no regard for the sentimental or emotional value of shares, and demanded that they would only invest in the club if they had complete control...and everyone should handover those shares for free. Now, it would seem, the boot is on the other foot....the club is, again, worthless in collateral terms, despite the fact that we have seen the rise in value of numerous young players over the last five years, all of which have been lost at undervalued sums to other clubs.
In the meantime, Sisu has chosen to appoint a string of unsuccessful, yet overpaid, executives and consultants in numerous roles, all of which have helped drain the club of resources that far out way the cost of the Ricoh rent, which Sisu unlawfully withhold..
There are some on here who fail to see beyond the headlines, or are too drawn in by the Sisu spin, in my opinion of course. Then there are others who seem so reluctant to accept the facts and figures, that we are justified in questioning their authenticity as 'ordinary' fans.
Whilst on my soapbox, can I just add, that there is a significant part of the fan base that comes from outside the city boundary, and hence are not city rate payers. this makes the % of ratepayers, who are city fans, even smaller than that estimated in some of these discussions., which further undermines the arguments of Grendel and co.........it is illegal for the council to fund an independent sports entity, from public funds. The rent payable to ACL is part of a commercial agreement that facilitated the building/development of the Arena as a facility for the city of Coventry, and enabled our team to play there. it did not permit the council to subsidise, directly or indirectly, the operating losses of the football club.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The rate payer and the council have nothing to do with the rent agreement. ACL is an independent company and is free to agree a rent with the football club. This has nothing to do with the Council or the taxpayer. Given that some financial experts here think ACL can profit without the club the £200K a year could be agreed. So the argument is not undermined. I suggest you come off your soapbox and enter the real world.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Then negotiations should have continued. To break the contract for as long as they have is farcical and shouldn't endear them to anyone-but the likes of Torch and Grendel seem to be tipping their hat at such a manoeuvre.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
My primary interest is to ensure the club survives. If that means a rent at an amount on par with other clubs in this league so be it. Contracts are broken and renegotiated in business all the time. Frankly I don't care as long as we are in business come January and if that means ACL need to re-adjust and cut their cloth accordingly I will not lose one seconds sleep over it.
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
ACL is jointly owned, the council has 50 %.
But I won't indulge in trading insults.
Just facts
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
The club will still be loss making, even if the rent was zero.
As always, you miss the main point of someone's post
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree at all that the club is right to pursue a more affordable rent agreement. I do however feel that the way it's gone about it has been beyond reprehensible and does us no favours in getting ACL to compromise. We could have kept up payments of what we deemed 'acceptable' in the meantime for instance-what we have now is a joke and Fisher is at the head of it.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It is also bizarre that some here applaud Fisher for racking up a £1.5 million bill due on Boxing Day. Accepting the rent cut offered would have saved a fair bit by now and further negotiation could have taken place.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
I haven't seen anyone applauding him, just fans of the club who want it to survive and for it not to be used to make a profit for others.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
He is playing roulette with the club's short term future and has rejected everything ACL have offered (which wouldn't have to be set in stone). Grendel condones breaking contracts on a whim-that's the kind of mentality some of us are backing.
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
There in lies the contradiction of your point.
If ACL are ripping off CCFC, to the point that they can't survive, then ACL are cutting their own throats, and will go unde themselves....which is rather pointless.
You cannot seriously believe that ACL are blindly profiteering from the death of CCFC?
I doubt any of us wants the club to evaporate
Just to be managed correctly
Last edited:
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Which is why I think a deal will be struck that will suit both parties, but it will more than likely end up going down to the wire.
If they are receiving 1.28M a year in rent, then they are clearly over charging the club, this cannot be denied, surely? Fair enough, if we were a PL club then there would no problem at all. Ideally an agreement will be made where the rent rises or decreases depending upon which division we are in. It is madness for a League 1 club with severe financial problems to be paying so much rent.
Part of being managed correctly will involve getting a reduction in rent in line with other teams in the league in which we play in. Surely it would be mismanagement to carry on paying more than Championship clubs pay?
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
For the last time SB-*nobody* objects to the club trying to secure a lower rent.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
But some do, there the ones who attitude pisses me off. I can understand the opinion of those who are criticising the way Fisher and SISU have acted but there are quite a few people actually who genuinely don't seem to want the rent reduced, just saying things along the lines of rent shouldn't be reduced because it is SISU's fault and they should pay for it, or they should continue paying 1.2 million pound rent because they knew about it when they bought the club and they hope ACL make a stand and make them pay the rent an other stuff when it is totally killing the club
Some peoples attitude it seems they would rather see SISU fail than CCFC succeed
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
The best solution would be to base it on the attendances.
We don't play in a typical league one stadium ( nor typical Championship , to be honest- alrhough there are a few more that are similar). If we were getting near the top of the league, in April, we may have quite a few more going up, which can only be possible if the stadium has the capacity, so that could be argued as a reason to have higher than normal rentals. We cannot have it both ways - a fantastic stadium at league one rates!.
Best compromise, work out a % of each ticket sold.
At the moment, lets say the rent is. £100k per month, for two home games (annualised) that's about £50k per match, average attendance 10k, which means £5 per ticket to rent the Ricoh. Not good really, is it? But if we had 20k fans, then it becomes £2.50 per ticket that goes towards the rent. The club needs to stabilise that figure, so that it can budget better, more consistently.
So, if it is reasonable that the wear and tear of the Ricoh is loosely proportional to the attendance, we need to identify a figure per head, say £1.
That way, both parties benefit from the success that we hope for, on the field, and it becomes more of a partnership that they will want to work at. It also means that the rental will be between 240 k and 480 k for gates between 10-20k.
That should satisfy both parties?
We don't play in a typical league one stadium ( nor typical Championship , to be honest- alrhough there are a few more that are similar). If we were getting near the top of the league, in April, we may have quite a few more going up, which can only be possible if the stadium has the capacity, so that could be argued as a reason to have higher than normal rentals. We cannot have it both ways - a fantastic stadium at league one rates!.
Best compromise, work out a % of each ticket sold.
At the moment, lets say the rent is. £100k per month, for two home games (annualised) that's about £50k per match, average attendance 10k, which means £5 per ticket to rent the Ricoh. Not good really, is it? But if we had 20k fans, then it becomes £2.50 per ticket that goes towards the rent. The club needs to stabilise that figure, so that it can budget better, more consistently.
So, if it is reasonable that the wear and tear of the Ricoh is loosely proportional to the attendance, we need to identify a figure per head, say £1.
That way, both parties benefit from the success that we hope for, on the field, and it becomes more of a partnership that they will want to work at. It also means that the rental will be between 240 k and 480 k for gates between 10-20k.
That should satisfy both parties?
Jim
Well-Known Member
No they will more than likely negotiate with ACL and actually accept the very generous offers that ACL are currently making to reduce that to £400k.
Black6Osprey
New Member
I turned on the radio a few days agp and caught the end of an interview where is was stated (didn't hear who was being interviewed but it wasn't Fisher) it has cost the club roughly £40M since we moved to the Ricoh.
Tim Fisher stated in the paper that we have paid many millions subsidising ACLs overheads.
Has anyone got anything factual to say about this and what this money relates to or is it more smoke and mirrors stuff?
Tim Fisher stated in the paper that we have paid many millions subsidising ACLs overheads.
Has anyone got anything factual to say about this and what this money relates to or is it more smoke and mirrors stuff?
Black6Osprey
New Member
Sorry if Im being thick but this is something I have wanted clarity on for a while.
Correct me if this is crap but I thought the Council loaned (I could look it up but cant be arsed so forgive me if it slightly out) approx £20M and ACL Ltd (a limited independent company) took out a mortgage for exactly the same amount and paid the council back leaving ACL with a lovely big Mortgage.
Taxpayers money was loaned and paid back so why does everyone bang on about the taxpayers money?
Again sorry if this is incorrect.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
my understanding too
Black6Osprey
New Member
Thanks for that. This is why my opnion on the council in this whole mess isnt very good unless someone can explain otherwise. Short term loan for a lot of behind the scenes power and land development potential for the future with no risk to them. Very clever but I keep hearing this protect the taxpayer stuff and this never comes from any council members by the way and I can't understand it .
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yep, I'm pretty certain that the council were paid back by the upfront rent ACL paid, and that ACL took a mortgage to loan the £20m for this.