Fisher On CWR Now (1 Viewer)

[SkyblueBazza]

Blimey...lots being said on this one. FFP will even out money spent on the pitch to an extent. The clubs with higher turnover will inevitably have more to spend I the playing side. They still must spend it wisely. That also means that a low revenue club with a successful youth program can still relatively comfortably do a Yeovil...Wigan...etc

 

---

[Noggin]

I didn't mean to imply ther would be less goals, although that might follow. I meant that teams with more equal budgets would lead to closer matches, with less big margin wins.
It would logically lead to tighter league tables with less points between top and bottom.
Didn't we see that last year to some degree?

Of course exceptions occur eg some matches where one or even two players get sent off.

imp:

Alot of that is a good thing though (other than less goals which again I don't think is likely) if every football club in the league had the same amount to spend I think football would be alot more compelling as well as we'd see lower ticket prices, fuller grounds, better atmosphere, better youth policy, better England performance and no clubs going bust. Our teams might do less well in Europe though.

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

He really has got a problem with playing at the Ricoh. Maybe CCC should give it to him?

Its the exhibition hall its too far for him to walk the dog round.

 

[simple_simon]

We are finished as a club, most fans have already given up the fight.

 

[Noggin]

Too literal man!
I wasn't suggesting they would sell the stadium for a profit after 5 years, I was ilustrating the debt doesn't need to be paid off to benefit!
The benefit with buying the stadium will come in increased revenues, over the long term.
They can finance buying the stadium for little more than the cost of the rent, or maybe even less than the £1.2m we were being fleeced for!

imp:

They perhaps could build a stadium for less than the 1.2mill a year though it's close, but they can't do it for anything close to the 400k a year they were offered and again the loss in revenue due to lower crowds is going to be more than the gain in revenue from food/beverage.

 

[James Smith]

Nonsense - London house prices increase because there is demand. How much demand is there for a crappy 15,000 stadium in Coventry or S Warwickshire (apart from our deluded owners)?

Absolutley, the value of something increases due to amongst other things the scarcity of the item i.e. supply and the number of people who would like to buy it i.e. demand. Stadiums are what I would describe as specialist purchases unlike say houses, and as such the scarcity of such sites is a factor in how much they are valued. How much is the Timpot "White Elephant" stadium going to be worth when there is an arguably better larger stadium i.e. the Ricoh quite nearby that someone could get instead?

 

[wingy]

Absolutley, the value of something increases due to amongst other things the scarcity of the item i.e. supply and the number of people who would like to buy it i.e. demand. Stadiums are what I would describe as specialist purchases unlike say houses, and as such the scarcity of such sites is a factor in how much they are valued. How much is the Timpot "White Elephant" stadium going to be worth when there is an arguably better larger stadium i.e. the Ricoh quite nearby that someone could get instead?

That is why Fisher feels able to describe it as worthless,as he's taken the ball .........and you know the rest.

 

[grego_gee]

I've got 3 mortgages thanks.

If you brought a 500k house with a 3% mortgage, kept it for 5 years and sold it even if house prices go up by 5% a year you do not make anything like 140k.

Firstly you spent £75k interest on your 500k mortgage over those 5 years. You spent £20k on stamp duty when buying the property. You Spend about 13k on estate agents or auction fees. You probably spend 3 grand with search fees, legal fees, arranging mortgage fees, survey fees etc, council tax on a 500k property in london is about £14k over 5 years and your profit is down to £15k and if it doesn't rise at 5% you might find you actually lose money.

I don't remember what was spent to build the Ricoh, I know you know though, add 5% per year to that, do you really think we could sell the Ricoh for that? If so if ACL/council are greedy, why not just said screw it to the football club and cash in?

We can twist figures around and present them in different lights.
Yes there are costs in buying, but also you saved all the dead money you would have paid in rent,
I wasn't trying to start a rant on the benefits of house buying, I was trying to illustrate that the debt we are left with is not something we should worry about having to pay off.
Its not external debt that can challenge SISU its all internal debt that they are comfortable with as a housholder would be with a mortgage.
The completion report for the Ricoh shows £115m, but the stadium is only a part of that. Similar stadiums have been built for £30m. Ask yourself why the Ricoh was 4 times as much?

imp:

 

[The Penguin]

I didn't mean to imply ther would be less goals, although that might follow. I meant that teams with more equal budgets would lead to closer matches, with less big margin wins.

I take it you aren't overly familiar with the Australian sporting system, where salary caps exist yet floggings are common place? Where for every close match there's a whopping blowout? For years in Australian rules football (yes it's a crap sport but enough about that) there have been salary caps, player drafts, equal TV money payments....as close to 'more equal' conditions as you can get, salary cap concessions to certain teams notwithstanding. Hasn't stopped there from always being four or five teams who get smashed week in, week out.

This is, of course, a very simplistic view. There are always reasons why there are teams who suck in Australian sport even though rules exist to equalise the competition - and most of those reasons centre around two things - player recruitment and coaching.

This is why I said it's not how much you've got, but what you do with it. Arguably our player recruitment for the past few years has been largely terrible, a few players aside.

 

[Noggin]

We can twist figures around and present them in different lights.
Yes there are costs in buying, but also you saved all the dead money you would have paid in rent,
I wasn't trying to start a rant on the benefits of house buying, I was trying to illustrate that the debt we are left with is not something we should worry about having to pay off.
Its not external debt that can challenge SISU its all internal debt that they are comfortable with as a housholder would be with a mortgage.
The completion report for the Ricoh shows £115m, but the stadium is only a part of that. Similar stadiums have been built for £30m. Ask yourself why the Ricoh was 4 times as much?

imp:

We can move past your flawed analogy (admittedly no where near as flawed as Fishers plan)
The simple question is which of the following are best for the club in the short, medium and long term.
Staying at the ricoh and paying 400k rent, or moving outside the city for 3 years+ and building our own stadium? The answer is staying at the ricoh is best in the short, medium and even long term. If they buy the food and beverage revenues then it becomes even more the case.

 

[olderskyblue]

All these forums, meetings, discussions with solicitors, administrators, Estate agents etc

If Tim had spent just some of this time "negotiating" with ARVO to reduce their "management" fees, the Ricoh costs would not be an issue.

 

[grego_gee]

but that is only benefit to SISU .........no benefit for the club ,so why are we going through this ..Like Deluded 4 yr contracts..........to gain book Value ...........look where that got us.

Yes Wingy
I agree too much examination of detail is not always worth it. At the end of the day its the owners choice not ours!
On another thread I said I was originaly hoping that we would come out of admin without the £70m SISU debt but realised that maybe if they are effectively buying the debt it may still be there! I am trying to rationalise that in my mind and and share those thoughts.
But even if SISU as owners are the ones that benefit, is it not better that they benefit rather than CCC. As owners they cant be expected to manage a £10m turnover and not take a percentage for doing it - if that percentage comes from rent that would otherwise go to CCC, who cares?

imp:

 

[RPHunt]

Too literal man!
I wasn't suggesting they would sell the stadium for a profit after 5 years, I was ilustrating the debt doesn't need to be paid off to benefit!
The benefit with buying the stadium will come in increased revenues, over the long term.
They can finance buying the stadium for little more than the cost of the rent, or maybe even less than the £1.2m we were being fleeced for!

imp:

Finance £30m for little more than the cost of the rent, I doubt that very much.

For any loan, the interest rate is set after assessing the risk of non-repayment of the loan and the residual value of the asset. Building a new stadium for SISU would be considered by any sane lender as very high risk with very little residual value.

I find it difficult to believe that any reputable institution would advance money for such a project and, in the unlikely event that they did, the interest rate would certainly be well over 10%, i.e. over £3m per year.

 

[grego_gee]

We can move past your flawed analogy (admittedly no where near as flawed as Fishers plan)
The simple question is which of the following are best for the club in the short, medium and long term.
Staying at the ricoh and paying 400k rent, or moving outside the city for 3 years+ and building our own stadium? The answer is staying at the ricoh is best in the short, medium and even long term. If they buy the food and beverage revenues then it becomes even more the case.

I don't disagree with your logic and I don't think Fishface would either!
I just think he is very bad at explaining that they don't have that choice!


imp:

 

[chiefdave]

What is all this about HMRC getting involved, is that just a rumour? While we may want SISU and Fisher to be investigated HMRC getting involved starts moving towards financial irregularities and a huge points penalty.

 

[grego_gee]

Finance £30m for little more than the cost of the rent, I doubt that very much.

For any loan, the interest rate is set after assessing the risk of non-repayment of the loan and the residual value of the asset. Building a new stadium for SISU would be considered by any sane lender as very high risk with very little residual value.

I find it difficult to believe that any reputable institution would advance money for such a project and, in the unlikely event that they did, the interest rate would certainly be well over 10%, i.e. over £3m per year.

I don't think SISU will be nipping out to the Coventry Economic for a mortgage. They are a reputible institution (despite what they get called on here) they will have their own sources of finance!

imp:

 

[Bluegloucester]

I don't think SISU will be nipping out to the Coventry Economic for a mortgage. They are a reputible institution (despite what they get called on here) they will have their own sources of finance!

imp:

Really?.......

 

[Jack Griffin]

So if fisher was quoting FFP a couple of years ago when it wouldn't come into play in championship until 2014, is it suggestible that they were already talking as if we were a league 1 or 2 team, had no intention of us staying in champ and made sure we were relegated?
the only way they'll get their money back is by getting promotion to prem, and that's not gonna happen.
So why are they still here?

I believe relegation was in the plan, because it allows them to get to a no losses situation, in fact I would not be surprised if they are already at break even & I think they certainly would be if Orange Ken hadn't signed some average players on long & costly contracts.

 

[Noggin]

I don't disagree with your logic and I don't think Fishface would either!
I just think he is very bad at explaining that they don't have that choice!


imp:

but they most certainly did have that choice and if they have now lost that then they should leave, the plan they have described doesn't work, if thats the best they can do they must let someone else try. Fisher said we won't sell because the club is at the bottom, he is mad, there is a lot lot further to fall with his plan. Moving into his new stadium as a League 2 side with 6k fans at the first game is the best he can hope for imo and that is much worse than paying ACL 1.2mil a year and making a push at the championship.

 

[deanocity3]

I don't think SISU will be nipping out to the Coventry Economic for a mortgage. They are a reputible institution (despite what they get called on here) they will have their own sources of finance!

imp:

they can have one of their sky blue saver accounts,one of the benefits is discount on rent:facepalm:

 

[RPHunt]

I don't think SISU will be nipping out to the Coventry Economic for a mortgage. They are a reputible institution (despite what they get called on here) they will have their own sources of finance!

imp:

Whether SISU are reputable or not, they cannot provide security for a £30m loan nor can they afford the repayments.

 

[italiahorse]

Too literal man!
I wasn't suggesting they would sell the stadium for a profit after 5 years, I was ilustrating the debt doesn't need to be paid off to benefit!
The benefit with buying the stadium will come in increased revenues, over the long term.
They can finance buying the stadium for little more than the cost of the rent, or maybe even less than the £1.2m we were being fleeced for!

imp:

Do us a favour. Put some rough figures together and see if you can make it work.
Just talking about it is a waste of time.
I've done it and it does not work.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Maybe half of the fans on here are not house owners so very scared of "debt".
An ordinary semi in London today costs £500k. Buy it on a mortgage and hold it for 5years. With house prices going up at 5% pa after 5 years you sell it and it has gone up to £640k! You didn't need to worry about "paying off the debt", the new buyer did it for you and you put £140k in your pocket!
Thats a simplistic picture and stadium financing is more complicated, but thats the way it works!

imp:

Very simplistic, you don't make £140K, you have to pay loads, 5 years repayments at £2,500/month = £150,000, not to mention all the buying & selling commission.

And there is no guarantee house prices will always rise at that rate or any other rate.

Grief man, you can't even come up with a realistic example. :facepalm:

 

[Jack Griffin]

Perhaps the one thing Fisher has got the fans to agree on is the vital importance with financial fair play rules.is the urgent need to maximise revenues.

Well a non loss making model always was the only realistic way to go, FFP or no FFP.

 

[italiahorse]

Well a non loss making model always was the only realistic way to go, FFP or no FFP.

He may balance the books but the income will keep us in Division 1 at best, with no chance of increasing income due to capacity restrictions.

 

[grego_gee]

Do us a favour. Put some rough figures together and see if you can make it work.
Just talking about it is a waste of time.
I've done it and it does not work.

You can figure it out and I can figure it out, neither bear any weight. Its up to whoever is going to put in the money to figure it out!
Only they can make that decision they wont be interested in advice from you or me!

imp:

 

[sky blue zam]

So to put a little figure work on that

Say the player budget was 2m that would require a minimum turnover of 3.3m. That leaves 1.3m to play other wages (non FFP players, coaches, academy costs, directors, commercial staff etc) the general overheads, the rent of the ground share, direct costs (policing stewards etc) Interest on loans etc. Can all that be covered by 1.3m ? Been paying ARVO best part of £1m in interest I believe for example

I assume there would be some TV money, sponsorship, league money etc say that 1m. that leaves matchday income at 2.3m. So say the matchday average for tickets was £10 (thats after concessions, freebies etc) that would mean crowds of 10000.

btw if you back and divide matchday income by attendance each year it works out around £12 per head net of VAT roughly speaking

so if crowds were 3000 at £10 per head that gives a turnover of 690k

Yes there might be other bits of income, cup runs etc but it looks bleak to me

all playing with figures i know but i just can not get it to make much sense and it hammers the ffp calculation .......... and any ambition

we could of course get lucky and get promoted........... but i wouldnt bet anyones mortgage on that right now would you ?

is it reasonable to think that crowds would average more than 3000? just say for arguments sake that wolves were up there fighting for promotion then they could probably easily sell out thr bescot, sheffield united in the same situation could sell 5/6000 swindon and brentford both brought 2000+ to the ricoh last season. i agree youll probably get 2000 city fans at the most but away fans will be important to sisu. saying that fisher was spouting about cheaper tickets, away tickets have to be in line with home ticket pricing, would fisher charge away fans corporate prices which i assume would br cheaper aswell.

 

[sky blue john]

grego you have been suckered in hook line and sinker if you believe any of the rubbish you are spouting on here.

A 70million debt is unsustainable never mind 100million with a new stadium scenario.
Even with all the revenue !!!!!

 

[sky blue john]

Fans are asking why do Sisu want to stay ?

The answer is simple they want this debt !!!
The more debt the better especially if its artificial debt.
The more there is the more they can legitimately take out of ccfc !!!!

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

Have not heard the interview, so can only base thoughts on what is posted as being said. The most startling thing there is the acceptance that the administrator will decide where we play whilst in admin...contrast that with the persistent "The Club is not for sale" stance. In other words - is this now an admission that the Heart of the Club IS for sale? Otherwise, if another bidder gets CCFC Ltd - THEY then decide where Holdings field the players?!
They wouldn't want that, so it suggests that in that scenario it would either be total buy out or lengthy court process for SISU...depending on the size/resource of the other party SISU may yet go quietly.
As far as HMRC...experience tells them that almost all struggling clubs have eventually been found to be owing a wad of cash to the taxman through one guise or another.

Yes, that was what stood out for me too. More proof that Mr Fisher full of sh1t.

As OSB's figures show, his theory on FFP is massively flawed (made up) too.

 

[ajsccfc]

I know Tim reads the forum, but I also know he can read my thoughts.

Meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

 

[_brian_]

I know Tim reads the forum, but I also know he can read my thoughts.

Meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

You're mad! LOL!

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I know Tim reads the forum, but I also know he can read my thoughts.

Meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

Homer showing the same look of concern that has been on faces of all City fans since about the Mid 90's..

 

[oldskyblue58]

update on the FFP

I contacted the Football League and asked

In League 1 clubs are restricted to a player budget of 60% of income. Is that restriction based on the turnover in the previous season (ie 2013/14 the calculation would be 60% of football income in accounts to 31/05/13) or is it budgets for the season to come?. How does the Football League monitor the calculation and if say income dropped significantly in 2013/14 when would that affect the calculation.


the reply was

The pre-season return is based on the clubs’ budgets for the coming season. This is updated mid-season with latest forecast for the remainder of the season. This is monitored throughout the season, to keep variances, from budget, to a minimum

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

And, to be fair, that is my point of view. I'm quite happy for a new stadium, just want to stay at the Ricoh in the meantime. But, if we stayed at the Ricoh, that would be OK too. Anything but a ground share really.

Sorry Torchy; I can't comprehend your stance here. You know nothing of the location, design nor capacity of the new stadium; yet you're happy to leave one of the best stadiums at this level in the country to be there?

What if leaving the Ricoh is as big a mistake as leaving Highfield Road? What is it that Einstein said about the definition if insanity?