Calista
Well-Known Member
I confess that the financial aspects of this whole saga are completely beyond me, but much has been made of the need for the club to have “access to all revenues”, and some people refer to this as the “pie money”.
Can anyone on here clarify the Financial Fair Play rules? Can a club count ALL revenues from its stadium complex towards FFP, or only FOOTBALL-RELATED revenues?
If it’s all the revenues, and CCFC took ownership of the Ricoh and ploughed all the money from the stadium, exhibitions, concerts, casino etc. into the FOOTBALL CLUB accounts, surely we’d become one of the most financially sound clubs in the country? As a complex, the Ricoh comes with far more facilities than most football stadiums.
But if FFP only allows match-day stuff like pies, that would be peanuts (if you get my drift). The football side of things would gain very little, over and above the ticket sales we already have access to. Meanwhile, the big money from everything else would be siphoned off to the owners. In our case, that looks very much like it would simply go to the “investors” behind SISU (who say we owe them £45 million or whatever).
And what about the “land enablement” mentioned by Mr. Fisher in the recent SCG minutes – can a club use profits from developing surrounding land to feed into FFP? And even if so, would SISU be likely to do that?
This is surely the root cause of the disagreements on here, and I’d love to see some considered replies.
Can anyone on here clarify the Financial Fair Play rules? Can a club count ALL revenues from its stadium complex towards FFP, or only FOOTBALL-RELATED revenues?
If it’s all the revenues, and CCFC took ownership of the Ricoh and ploughed all the money from the stadium, exhibitions, concerts, casino etc. into the FOOTBALL CLUB accounts, surely we’d become one of the most financially sound clubs in the country? As a complex, the Ricoh comes with far more facilities than most football stadiums.
But if FFP only allows match-day stuff like pies, that would be peanuts (if you get my drift). The football side of things would gain very little, over and above the ticket sales we already have access to. Meanwhile, the big money from everything else would be siphoned off to the owners. In our case, that looks very much like it would simply go to the “investors” behind SISU (who say we owe them £45 million or whatever).
And what about the “land enablement” mentioned by Mr. Fisher in the recent SCG minutes – can a club use profits from developing surrounding land to feed into FFP? And even if so, would SISU be likely to do that?
This is surely the root cause of the disagreements on here, and I’d love to see some considered replies.