Do ACL need us or not? (2 Viewers)

Ricoh2012 said:

It's not ACL fault the club is poorly managed - if they were so bothered about the club, why didn't they invest in the team, or buy the stadium earlier!!

There main plan is to get there hands on the Ricoh - they never wanted the club, if they did we would still be in the championship. It's all about devaluing the ACL product to get it on the cheap. However, they are now stuck because ACL and its backers compass, council, Higgs, deVere and Yorkshire bank haven't rolled over and taken it.

The fans will be thankful in years to come that they have stood there ground on this. Let the club go into admin and let a proper football owner take over - then you will see the differences in a joined up cooperation!!!!

Click to expand...

Are you a fan or not?

Sick Boy said:

I always thought that Ranson has a 'vision' on how to run a club and sought investors out, it was probably a bit of both, but they would have had no idea on how to run a club. Of course it is easier to blame everything on SISU though, was it right that he was also charging the club massive interest on loans??

If CCFC account for 17% of ACL's profit then they cannot afford to live without the club. How much did ACL pay for 50% of the Arena, 4m? What percentage was that of the market rate? It can't even be 15%!! So it was ok for them to take advantage of a situation, and not help the football club when it is in dire need of support?

How would the club owning its ground lead to us getting ripped off more than ever? It would be hard to top how much we are being ripped off now.

Click to expand...

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

Sick Boy said:

I always thought that Ranson has a 'vision' on how to run a club and sought investors out, it was probably a bit of both, but they would have had no idea on how to run a club. Of course it is easier to blame everything on SISU though, was it right that he was also charging the club massive interest on loans??

If CCFC account for 17% of ACL's profit then they cannot afford to live without the club. How much did ACL pay for 50% of the Arena, 4m? What percentage was that of the market rate? It can't even be 15%!! So it was ok for them to take advantage of a situation, and not help the football club when it is in dire need of support?

How would the club owning its ground lead to us getting ripped off more than ever? It would be hard to top how much we are being ripped off now.

Click to expand...

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????

Ricoh2012 said:

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????

Click to expand...

Are you a fan or not?

Ricoh2012 said:

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????

Click to expand...

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.

Sick Boy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Grendel said:

Are you a fan or not?

Click to expand...

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.

Ricoh2012 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So the people in the wings will pay £1.25 million rent a year will they?

I seem to have entered a time warp and gone back to 2011.

Ricoh2012 is a WUM, a AFL plant or 10 years old.

LOL who is waiting in the wings? Who is going to pay ACLs rent?!

Ricoh2012 said:

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.

Click to expand...

torchomatic said:

LOL who is waiting in the wings? Who is going to pay ACLs rent?!

Click to expand...

No one. But as long as we are extinct who cares? SISU have gone. Losing the football club is a tiny price to pay.

Some peoples stance on this bewilder me

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.

BurbageSkyBlues said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stupot07 said:

It was offered reduced rent yes, but not the level they want. The first offer of £600k and alleged new offer of £400k is still significantly higher than the championship and league one average.

Click to expand...

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.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Grendel said:

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.

Click to expand...

ACL is jointly owned, the council has 50 %.

But I won't indulge in trading insults.

Just facts

Grendel said:

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.

Click to expand...

The club will still be loss making, even if the rent was zero.

As always, you miss the main point of someone's post

I am sure they paid 4 million for their share, they haven't exactly done too bad out of the football club.

It is bizarre that so many of the club's own supporters are revelling in the club being ripped off and potentially being put out of business.

Grendel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Sick Boy said:

I am sure they paid 4 million for their share, they haven't exactly done too bad out of the football club.

It is bizarre that so many of the club's own supporters are revelling in the club being ripped off and potentially being put out of business.

Click to expand...

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.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Sick Boy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Sick Boy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

BurbageSkyBlues said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

For the last time SB-*nobody* objects to the club trying to secure a lower rent.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

For the last time SB-*nobody* objects to the club trying to secure a lower rent.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Grendel said:

So the people in the wings will pay £1.25 million rent a year will they?

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

my understanding too

Black6Osprey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.