shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
My fear is that SISU are here for a long time yet but its not easy cash for them I expect next years STs to be massively down as crowds slip to 4,000 - 5,000
I've already posted this on a different thread but I think the question to ask is why would sisu leave? They are not incurring further losses, they get an occasional windfall from selling young players and are no longer under any pressure from protests, questions in parliament, national media stories etc, and no one is going to offer more than a token payment to buy the club. So why would they walk away from something that incurs no losses and gets an occasional windfall - it's easy money!
My fear is that SISU are here for a long time yet but its not easy cash for them I expect next years STs to be massively down as crowds slip to 4,000 - 5,000
As things currently stand me +3 will not be renewing, thats 3 adults and a child ticket.
How could they tempt you into renewing?
Next year might be a little tougher for them though, as I think most of the goodwill has gone already from the move back to the Ricoh and unless they invest properly there is no way I will be renewing my season ticket (as I have said before if they invest I will invest if not I might go to the odd game). I also can't see many windfalls coming early knocked out in the cup and a playing staff that combined aren't worth a million pounds, even if they sell Haynes before Pressley burns him out how much is he worth £250k?
They are in a mess and need to turn things around but history can tell us another disaster is not far off. But for me the following needs to happen.
1) SISU/AVRO write off any debts/payments.
2) SISU drop £1.82M per year admin fees on the club.
This would free up £1.82M per year to be invested in the squad/acadamey.
With all the short-term contracts sisu can liquidate as soon as there is a problem for them and lack of season ticket sales for 2015/16 could be such a problem. Or they could just reduce the playing budget to match whatever the income level is. They key for sisu is not making a loss, short/medium-term potential windfalls, and for the longer-term just waiting and seeing what happens eg if wasps fail options would open up.
Why don't SISU try making Wasps an offer for 50% of ACL? They could offer say £5m. Wasps would near double their investment overnight, still own 50% and guarantee us sticking around long term therefore increasing overall revenues.
They may tell us to get stuffed but surely worth a try.
Is there one? The big prize has now gone and so what do the idiots do next? Do they know themselves? If this has been done before then I apologies but I want to know how they think that they can now get of the hole which they have dug for themselves.
Why should sisu (or the club) pay double what wasps have paid for? After higgs rejecting out bid, it just wouldn't feel right to me, it would feel like us getting shafted again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Okay - who's 'our'? Wasn't one of the issues that Higgs couldn't even - thanks to labyrinthine accounts and company structures - understand who 'owned' the option?
Why should sisu (or the club) pay double what wasps have paid for? After higgs rejecting out bid, it just wouldn't feel right to me, it would feel like us getting shafted again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
From the information that has been made public there are no indication as to why the CCFC bid failed, it looks as if the Higgs were always going to choose the Wasps bid and it wouldn't have mattered if CCFC had bid ten times more than the Share Value.
From Nick Eastwood's reaction any accepted bid by Higgs on behalf of a bid by CCFC would have been veto'd anyhow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Successive owners and others have shafted CCFC financially for years in my opinion. Where the present owners have been singularly successful is by shafting the club on an emotional level as well and thereby disconnecting the essential basis of any club - the fans
But this continues to be cloud-cuckoo land thinking. You seem to think that the club has a per se right to 'revenues' without properly covering the overhead - whatever it is - that gives them the platform to generate those incomes. The need to either rent, or build afresh; in which case there are funding/investments costs to cover. Where does £20/30 million come from for a new stadium? What are the capital repayments on that? Who's stumping up that cash and expecting what return?
If you look at a 'reasonable' term for a project of the size of this; there's no way you come back to a sum of less than £1 - 1.5m per annum to cover costs and repayment on build. And what revenues can be secured to cover this? Against local competition from the NEC/Ricoh/etc? And all this against the backdrop of a constant spiralling downward trend of prominence and customer base for the football club. I was reading an article reporting the visions of Nick Watkins, CEO of Swindon recently, and his aspiration to build non-football related income from £750K to £1m. If we agree we are a similarly sized club; what you're talking is spending money to build anew to generate an income that's less than the potential cost.
For my money, SISU has to negotiate the best possible deal with Wasps, and engage again with the fan base they have alienated - therefore building again their traditional incomes. And that comes from candid, honest interaction with fans, so stop this charade about new stadiums, and cease this poisonous litigation that's doing us no good. For every c.3K fans they can attract back; there's £1m income directly into the coffers. Until they can conjure a better plan - that's where I'd start
Why should sisu (or the club) pay double what wasps have paid for? After higgs rejecting out bid, it just wouldn't feel right to me, it would feel like us getting shafted again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
That type of thing happens more often than you think. My employer purchased our head office, then immediately sold it on for a large profit on a leaseback scheme.
I know it happens. Just makes me feel like the club had been shafted again. I doubt wasps will want to sell anyway, they will see the medium to long term benefit of keeping 100% against short term cash.
It'd also mean council/Higgs would be shafted as well, of course
I know it happens. Just makes me feel like the club had been shafted again. I doubt wasps will want to sell anyway, they will see the medium to long term benefit of keeping 100% against short term cash.
If SISU and some on here are to be believed the Ricoh is now at it's most valuable since it was built.
When our club left it was said to be worthless as it is a sporting arena and it didn't have any sporting clubs using it. The Ricoh now has two sporting clubs. So if it was worthless without a club using the facilities isn't it worth twice the amount with two clubs than one? SISU reduced the value by removing our club. They have doubled the value by returning. So wouldn't SISU need to pay the price?
Too late with that one has well, heard that Coventry United are going to ground share with them next season, and maybe next year they will only be 5 divisions apart.COV UNITED top of their League PUCU
It doesn't necessarily work that way. I imagine that neither club would pay rent, both clubs would be insistent on keeping their own matchday revenues, sponsorship, etc so that although turnover would be higher, the actual profit of ACL would be lower as it wouldn't only be from other operations, then you've got stadium and stand sponsorship - is that really likely to double because of a league one club being there? And technically with the rent deal running out in 18 months plus maybe 2 more years the value of the ccfc currently being there wouldn't necessarily increase the value as at the minute it's time limited.
So that means that if the value hasn't gone up for having two sporting clubs instead of one the value wasn't close to zero like we were told, yet Wasps got it for next to nothing because of this.
The deal that has our club at the Ricoh isn't time limited. It is owner limited. If they want to move us away to try and get a better deal there is a good chance they will attempt to. If they try to buy a share of the Ricoh whilst we are there it would have more value than if we were playing elsewhere. Wasps bought the lease when no club were playing there. It is worth more than they paid for it just for them playing there. And what is there at this stage to say that Wasps would be happy to let our club have a share?
No wasps bought the lease when we were playing there. We'd already moved back when the deal was signed. They negotiated when there was no club there, but they must have known ccfc would be back as it was struggling at sixfields.
I agree with your last point. There's no way wasps will sell their share to us at this stage, so it's a non starter anyway? They will want to restructure and extract every last penny out the stadium first. And actually they may very well never want to sell a stake in ACL.
And thank you i stand correctedCov Utd are currently in The Midland Football League » Division 2 - which is tier 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Football_League
Coventry City are currently in tier 3
So even if CUFC go up & CCFC go down there will be a 6 division gap.
Sphinx are actually in tier 9, so they're currently 6 divisions lower.
Just saying..
Why should sisu (or the club) pay double what wasps have paid for? After higgs rejecting out bid, it just wouldn't feel right to me, it would feel like us getting shafted again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any 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?