Fisher on Free Radio (5 Viewers)

They are doing what I would call 'engineering' a result that they want. It's a risky business and a gamble of sorts with the very lifeline of our football club. They (SISU) I suspect have less regard for that and more regard in doing whatever is possible to acheive an end result which will lead to them getting their money back they have laid out so far. It's clear that it is in their interest to keep the club afloat while this saga is played out as the best and current option. I don't blame them and they are making some fair points about the rent, though that was never an issue earlier in the process and only when they considered their losses and how unfair it had become due to being dumped in league 1.
I can't say I blame them for their approach now and ACL strike me as a bunch of amateurs at the races. It also says SISU will hang in while the prospects of retreiving their input to date is still outweighing other options for them.
From that I deduce a quandry for them come January as we need some investment to perhaps make the playoffs and therefore recoup monies while at the same time they will not wish to spend anything if there is no agreement on the stadium (rent or share ) They are playing with the very fabric of the club and it's supporters to leverage ACL which is pretty downright disrespectful. If I was to sum up what might happen then I would think SISU hold most of the cards on this one.

oldskyblue58 said:

I really do hope this comes back to bite TF and SISU

“ !

Click to expand...

will bite ccfc in turn

i hope they get their way personally.

As far as PR goes TF obviously thinks fans are thick and will swallow any old crap. Just as OSB said tries to cosy up to supporters and lay blame at nasty old acl

cloughie said:

As far as PR goes TF obviously thinks fans are thick and will swallow any old crap. Just as OSB said tries to cosy up to supporters and lay blame at nasty old acl

Click to expand...

On reflection

TF is correct some of our supporters are thick having read some of the posters on this site at times

This is getting so frustrating. It's like both parties are looking at us, pointing a desperate finger at each other screaming "He's a bigger bastard" "No, HE'S a bigger bastard"

Love it. Fisher trying to make it sound like he's paying the rent. Match day costs are around £200,000 per annum. Some of that cost which CCFC pay ACL is of course for car parking which CCFC has sold at a margin, food etc in the corporate areas that CCFC has sold at a margin... So what is CCFC actually paying? What is turnover. How much is a kilo of apples and pears Fisher?

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't (no not even you Wisher) fool all of the people all of the time.

Of course Clarke is an exception, he is fooled all of the time, but then so might I be if I was his size with free pies and a nice salary for doing fuck all except eat.

I wouldn't expect anything else off you ccfc4l. Just for once,you need to stop being so one eyed and look at the bigger picture.

Are the stadium naming rights up this year then? Sure I saw that mentioned earlier?

Also on CWR at 5.15pm

SISU have been trying to engineer this since April thats for sure. I still get the impression that TF has been caught on the hop just now. ACL issued their statement first, what did it say. Well it was factual, the rent hasnt been paid, they can't wait forever, they remain open to talks if they are meaningful, that the business had been boosted by the Olympics with some major business due in...... but the rent hadnt been paid since April.

Rent is seperate to the utility usage charge (service charge) and those costs are extra to any rent set or to be agreed. I would also point out that ACL solicitors stated in August when they got the judgement they didnt think the club would pay up (see CT report)

The statement from TF is a little less factual, designed to stir up supporters get them worried and behind the club (not SISU as such). He speculates on things about ACL which is designed to try put pressure on them, he reiterates the rent should only be L1 average (but the average is now 100K), that they were entitled to the other incomes, that MR would benefit from it and that SISU continue to fund us. Drops in things about naming rights and stand sponsorship going. Seems to me he has accelerated the plan when in actual fact all he had to do was wait until ACL ran out of money.

Now I am not going to fault either party as such because each has to follow their own agenda.

In respect of the deal with the Charity then I think the true colours of TF/SISU have been revealed. They were going through the motions. As PWKH says SISU have not come up with either acceptable price or terms. But it did buy SISU time even if it cost the participants to do so. Then TF comes out with "I would not buy half of something which is worth nothing today" tells you everything you need to know about the validity of any discussions, more smoke and mirrors. I think we have nearly all agreed for sometime that we didnt see what was in it for SISU to buy 50%

So Paxman is right, SISU are trying to engineer things and playing a big gamble. I would disagree about ACL being amateurs, my understanding would be that all the parties on that side of things have brought in some very big artillery. I do not think that we should misread simple statements or lack of comment as being out of depth. I also agree with him though that you cant blame SISU for doing what they see fit to dig themselves out of a hole (i dont have to like it though).

Questions then
1) is TF's reading of the situation correct - is the more business like statements from ACL & Charity simply a dignified one or a statement by a company in real trouble
2) Is there an alternative that can sort this out - get agreement that is mutually beneficial
3) What is League 1 average rent (say it was £150k <what TF originally said it was at forum> for everyone bar CCFC £1.2m and Walsall £427K that makes average over £200k). What would be the notional rents on grounds that are owned ?
4) Why the emphasis all of a sudden by TF on ACL finances - what does he think he knows and is he right?
5) Why assume ACL have done nothing to mitigate the problem
6) What makes TF believe the leverage at ACL is so bad it cant be maintained by having a reasonable paying tenant given the profit each year and the fact that debt decreases each year (net balance sheet worth ACL 2011 £1.5m 2010 £1.0m 2009 £0.5m 2008 £(2.7)m)
7) why do CCFC think they can not pay any rent until such time as the matter is settled - a risky strategy
8) why are they so surprised that ACL might take action to recover and what makes them so confident that ACL will fail.
9) what else is going on behind the screens
10) does anyone know when the various sponsorships will run out ? both for ACL and CCFC

wait to see who cracks first

final question - what time is my dinner and what we having Mrs OSB ! :laugh::laugh:

kg82 said:

Are the stadium naming rights up this year then? Sure I saw that mentioned earlier?

Click to expand...

I thought it was a 10 year contract?

I'm of the opinion that SISU don't think ACL will enforce the debt - they think they are too worried about the effect this will have on the club and the fallout afterwards

I think they are wrong

oldskyblue58 said:

In respect of the deal with the Charity then I think the true colours of TF/SISU have been revealed. They were going through the motions. As PWKH says SISU have not come up with either acceptable price or terms. But it did buy SISU time even if it cost the participants to do so. Then TF comes out with "I would not buy half of something which is worth nothing today" tells you everything you need to know about the validity of any discussions, more smoke and mirrors.

Click to expand...

I agree - this was the most revealing quote.

As each day passes it becomes clearer and clearer that SISU were not negotiating in good faith.

Sadly, that does not come as a surprise.

WillieStanley said:

I thought it was a 10 year contract?

Click to expand...

Yes and had already had been renewed so about 15 years or so to go.

Is it not true that all parties (ACL, CCFC, the council and Higgs) were subject to non disclosure agreements? Why is Fisher discussing ACL's finances? Where did the information come from?
Who would deal with him now?

that was my understanding of the stadium naming rights too ....... years still to go

Anyone owed money as the biils not being paid?

The TF argument about "average rent" dosen't make any sense, you are paying for the facility not the level we're at - the Ricoh is not an average league one stadium. I don't know which other teams rent, but lets say its Yeovil. Well yes £100k a year is a fair amount for their ground, but when you look at the Ricoh £100k is not a fair amount.

Its like saying you've got 2 houses on the same road. One is a 2 bedroom terraced and the other is a 5 bedroom detached. You wouldn't expect to be able to rent both properties for the same amount would you?

jas365 said:

The TF argument about "average rent" dosen't make any sense, you are paying for the facility not the level we're at - the Ricoh is not an average league one stadium. I don't know which other teams rent, but lets say its Yeovil. Well yes £100k a year is a fair amount for their ground, but when you look at the Ricoh £100k is not a fair amount.

Its like saying you've got 2 houses on the same road. One is a 2 bedroom terraced and the other is a 5 bedroom detached. You wouldn't expect to be able to rent both properties for the same amount would you?

Click to expand...

Of course I would. I am SISU. I would want them both for.nothing.

Wrenstreetcarpark said:

Love it. Fisher trying to make it sound like he's paying the rent. Match day costs are around £200,000 per annum. Some of that cost which CCFC pay ACL is of course for car parking which CCFC has sold at a margin, food etc in the corporate areas that CCFC has sold at a margin... So what is CCFC actually paying? What is turnover. How much is a kilo of apples and pears Fisher?

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't (no not even you Wisher) fool all of the people all of the time.

Of course Clarke is an exception, he is fooled all of the time, but then so might I be if I was his size with free pies and a nice salary for doing fuck all except eat.

Click to expand...

I believe that we don't get any profits from the parking or food in the corporate areas.

However its clearly a game of brinkmanship, both are vying for the best deal, and its still got a long time to run imo. Interesting to know that ACL are not in such a strong position though.

WillieStanley said:

I thought it was a 10 year contract?

Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. But I swear someone mentioned on here earlier that TF said something about it, along with all the stands sponsors backing out?

skyblueman said:

“We appreciate that ACL's financial position must be particularly fragile at the moment, especially given its very high debt levels, the recent withdrawal of multiple stand sponsorships and the upcoming drop in naming rights revenue.

Click to expand...

I don't get it? Has the naming right's contract been renegotiated before the end of the 10 years? And is now less than it was?

Ground up for sale

The cash-strapped side also have their ground up-for sale after Paul Kemsley’s £500m property empire went into meltdown.
In April 2008 a 25 year lease was granted to Crystal Palace an annual rent of £1.2m, the club's owner Simon Jordan already had the option of buying the freehold under the terms of the 25-year lease agreement he secured for his club in 2008.


This was the scenario in Jan 2010 where both the club and the property developer who owned the ground both were in Admin.

It is alluded that the rent or annual lease payment had been missed .Jordan had agreed a £1.2M. per an 25 lease ,note the rent level symetry.

Ultimately the buyers were allowed to purchase the ground for roughly 50% value,£3M. with a covenent that any resale profit would go to LLoyds who were major creditors.

Interestingly the whole chain of events were prompted by a hedge fund AGILO /ARVO in our case ,who had put in £4.5M. recently ,but following a winding up order from HMCR

decided to pre-empt things puuting the club into admin as preferred creditors .

You get where I'm coming from.

Naming rights with RICOH run for 13 more years!!

The truth is businesses act ruthlessly in an attempt to get what they want.

As supporters I am not sure which side we are supposed to take. However, as a supporter of the football club as opposed to ACL I have to be honest and say if SISU can force the rent dowm by 90% that will be the one good thing they have achieved since being here.

Just listen to this garbage from this TOSSER.:jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit:

Find you're own fucking finance.

Wingy you are clearly not too happy with Mr Fisher's stance but we do have to accept that the club will not ever afford the rent that is being sought. The figure is not sustainable. A new deal has to be struck. The supporters in voting on ACL's side are like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

I have no interest in ACL and I have no interest in the Council. I only have interest in the club I'm afraid. If the money saved was spent on the club then I don't care.

And here goes our season yet again.

Grendel said:

The truth is businesses act ruthlessly in an attempt to get what they want.

As supporters I am not sure which side we are supposed to take. However, as a supporter of the football club as opposed to ACL I have to be honest and say if SISU can force the rent dowm by 90% that will be the one good thing they have achieved since being here.

Click to expand...

Be better if they can force it down by 110% and ACL start paying us to be there!

Grendel said:

Wingy you are clearly not too happy with Mr Fisher's stance but we do have to accept that the club will not ever afford the rent that is being sought. The figure is not sustainable. A new deal has to be struck

Click to expand...

The club can't afford the rent that's being sought as the current owners, who willingly assumed the contractual liabilities to the Ricoh, have overseen a relegation and halving in gates.

So, they break a contract and blackmail (sorry, I can summon no more suitable word) ACL into a lower than agreed rent. Then what? They run with that contract until their ineptitude gives rise to an even lower rental expectation and the whole basket case starts again?

Otis said:

Be better if they can force it down by 110% and ACL start paying us to be there!

Click to expand...

Indeed, but this is the crux of the matter. If supporters want a succesful team how will they get it when 20% of revenue is paid on rent. In football terms this is not sustainable and we must have the only supporters in history who support the landlord and not the football club.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

The club can't afford the rent that's being sought as the current owners, who willingly assumed the contractual liabilities to the Ricoh, have overseen a relegation and halving in gates.

So, they break a contract and blackmail (sorry, I can summon no more suitable word) ACL into a lower than agreed rent. Then what? They run with that contract until their ineptitude gives rise to an even lower rental expectation and the whole basket case starts again?

Click to expand...

So what? So you would rather oblivion for the club?

So am I wrong in thinking that they want an average rent of £100k, but just the matchday running costs equate to £200k a year. How would that work out?

Grendel said:

Indeed, but this is the crux of the matter. If supporters want a succesful team how will they get it when 20% of revenue is paid on rent. In football terms this is not sustainable and we must have the only supporters in history who support the landlord and not the football club.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much ACL or the club ... it's all about sisu. Getting rid of sisu, preferbly with them (their funds) losing every penny they have invested is far more important than the survivel of the club.