Full Q and A's (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TurkeyTrot
- Start date
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
The club were right to initially stand up to ACL on the rent, there tactics were questionable and this has gone way further than it should have. Both sides need to be locked in a room and not allowed to leave until a deal is agreed
Interesting that ACL still won't agree to a mediator to broker a deal
Interesting that ACL still won't agree to a mediator to broker a deal
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Name me a football club that runs in an open transparent manner? It's a business and will release only what is required to the public domain whether we like it or not.
Before anyone suggest "its our club". No it isn't. It's a business. The last time I looked I was not offered any kind of membership of this 'club'? You want in buy some shares....
Before anyone suggest "its our club". No it isn't. It's a business. The last time I looked I was not offered any kind of membership of this 'club'? You want in buy some shares....
Sub
Well-Known Member
i did that and had to hand them back for fuck all !!!
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Those are what any club would pay as part of hosting football matches.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I think it implies it is the same & there is a premium per head based on the actual crowd figures. So if I have got it right then..
L1........................... £400K pa
Champ with 18K........£400K+3000*3*46 = £814K
Prem with 21K...........£400K+5000*4*38 = £1.16M
Prem with 25K...........£400K+9000*4*38 = £1.77M
Ermmm.. it isn't clear if numbers are worked out on season averages or on a match by match basis, that could make one hell of a difference and I have not included cup & friendly matches.
I think there must considerable scope for ACL to reduce those figures or modify the formula in some way (certainly to cap the sum at some threshold) as if this case TF would be right, it does not assist the club to maintain a higher league position, which in itself would be good for ACL.
My gut feeling is that the rates in higher leagues are far too high and the basis of calculation is far too prone to variation which could negatively effect cashflow.
Last edited by a moderator:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure jack, the fact that ACLs answer says that extra spectator payments were verbally withdrawn. This suggest that the base rate must be increased in the championship and premier league as would be expected.
8: Have rents for Championship and Premiership been offered and agreed?
ACL: Yes, all part of the HOT verbally agreed with CCFC on 29th January 2013 in the presence of the Boards of each party, CCFC subsequently reneged on the agreement. Requirement for extra spectator payments subsequently withdrawn verbally.
CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Whoops, missed that.. 
so we are still in the mushroom position, but if nothing else it shows the path the negotiation followed.
so we are still in the mushroom position, but if nothing else it shows the path the negotiation followed.Yes but one of the reasons ACL refused a mediator was because Sisu wanted the mediator to have the right to go through ACLs books. However Sisu were not prepared to allow the mediator to go through CCFCs books! As I understand it ACL are accusing Sisu of taking huge amounts of money out of the club in management charges and ACL wanted to the mediator to be able to expose this if he was to access ACLs books!
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Why didn't ACL say that in their answer then?
They say they are confident a mediator wouldn't ask them to offer a better deal so wouldn't it be worth just to get it sorted?
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Oh right, so if none of us go to any games, that business will be just fine and dandy, will it?
No, it won't, as that business needs customers. And the way the business has been run has lost them around 40% of their customers-if they remain beyond this season, it will be a lot more.
More than that, football is not just like any other business. SISU think it is, but I would have expected a better understanding of why it isn't from a supporter.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Ah, if only it were that simple. You said it yourself though, we're "customers" now, not supporters. We're just numbers there to ensure a Club makes it though another season intact. We should know about that in the business we work in. At one time I would have agreed with you that football isn't like any other business, but it is now. Investors won't invest if they aren't going to get a return. Gone are the days where a successful businessman runs his local club.
The Premier League will get around £4 billion over the next three years with only around £62M dropping down to our leagues over the same period. It's no wonder that clubs like us are facing the problems we do, which makes it all the more imperative that we get a fair deal so we can compete with other clubs.
The Premier League will get around £4 billion over the next three years with only around £62M dropping down to our leagues over the same period. It's no wonder that clubs like us are facing the problems we do, which makes it all the more imperative that we get a fair deal so we can compete with other clubs.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
What I mean Torch is that there is a difference between supporting a team and for example, having brand loyalty to a type of toothpaste. We can't "take our custom elsewhere", and we are stakeholders in the club. Some clubs do still actually acknowledge this: CCFC under SISU essentially see us as the enemy.
I agree with that. Nobody has ever had their ashes scattered outside of Homebase, or bought a brick in the wall of a new Carpetright outlet.
Football clubs matter, and while they may operate as businesses on certain levels, they are much more than that.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
There can't be many people who will still be defending SISU after reading their answers unless they are care in the community patients, work for SISU or need a CAT/MRI scan urgently. My friend who runs a small business just looked at the details that have been provided by both sides and as a neutral said she thinks SISU are a bunch of muppets with an ulterior motive. Now that's her personal opinion but she came to that conclusion without any prompting from me, although it's close to my own views.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I'm not sticking up Sisu, I'm traits get my head around the how the PL and championship rent would have worked.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
That sounded word for word like Grendel.
I thought TF said the deal between CCFC and the council did not interest him or effect him?
SISU snapped up all the shares from people under duress if I remember rightly.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Are the trust able to ask how the club are 60 million in debt. Yet SISU have put in around 45 million, which has been written off in full?
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, you're right. Meacleans in our family, btw. Won't touch Colgate....fucking rubbish.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
10/10 for creativity on your put downs for people who have differing opinions to your own. Smart.
To retort....ACL wanted to sell in effect, what we're after, for £24m. The same revenue stream that nets approx £119k per annum at the moment. At that rate, we'd cover the initial outlay in 201 years. Cos that's reasonable....
WM
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find the same man courting the next game in town actually encouraged this.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Solitaire is the only game in town!!
What are your thoughts on everything now?
Am thinking acl and ccfc ltd(admin) have done a deal to play at Ricoh for free last 3 games
Fl have no idea what to do and will delay our punishment indefinitely and only give us one this year if it matters
Think investors will buy whole kit and cuboodle from Higgs, sisu and acl by the summer and we will start with -15 on lg 1
You??
Last edited:
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Was at the doctors waiting with a a room full of people who were being subjected to a loud screaming patient complaining vociferously about their doctor. I wasn't feeling great and that SISU had answered some questions the way they had just made me feel worse. I apologise for any offence caused to anyone who is still defending SISU. Most of the answers from ACL were sensible and the SISU ones were questionable in places.10/10 for creativity on your put downs for people who have differing opinions to your own. Smart.
To retort....ACL wanted to sell in effect, what we're after, for £24m. The same revenue stream that nets approx £119k per annum at the moment. At that rate, we'd cover the initial outlay in 201 years. Cos that's reasonable....
WM
The only quoted answer that has £119k in it only refers to F&B revenue nothing else is included in that figure. Now I originally assumed that there would be lots more income streams included in that to make the £24m figure sensible. Off the top of my head now that I think about it I can only think of parking spaces which will only be about £9k per match. Can anyone think of or know of any others?
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Not sure if you were accusing me of 'defending' SISU. Either way, I'm not. They've in no way endeared themselves to anyone here but they're not the only guilty party in this whole mess. The Council and Richardson in my eyes are as much to blame. Greed seems to be an inherent (?) trait interwoven to a number of parties in this shameful mess. Note I didn't put ACL in with this...I split the Higgs charity out from ACL as opposed to the Council as from what I've read, their £6m investment was up for grabs for £4m (or is).
My point you refer to about the F+B revenue streams was taking from the original Q+A and clearly states that ACL were willing to accept a sum of £24m for something that nets a £119k profit per annum. SISU indeed might be greedy, but even if you factor in car parking revenue (and you're right, I can't see any other revenue to bolster this stream), they're not the only ones with this 'trait'...
WM
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Not suggesting anything about you. I did just think maybe it was a remark at the end of a meeting made purely as a “goodbye” gesture and not as a sign of any "serious offer"
CJparker
New Member
There it is - right there. My answer to anyone who complains about the rent - it is clear from this that SISU were happy with the rent in 2007 because they wanted to keep it fixed "when" they got promoted to the Premier League. The idea of a variable rent didn't suit them back then - now, all of a sudden and very conveniently, rent negotations are on their agenda.
Funny, some would say they only negotiate when it suits them, and that they want to have their cake and eat it!!
That is not an answer to anyone who 'complains about the rent'; I'll complain about the rent regardless of what SISU or any new owner say or do about it.
Will never change my position on this, the local authority should not be charging its football club anything approaching that amount of money if it hinders their progress (it is incredibly short-sighted). Other local councils across the land, from Swansea to Doncaster and others in between, take the view that they would rather see their football clubs succeed because the wider economic benefits are far greater. Swansea are on the crest of a wave, Doncaster are top of the table and heading back to the Championship. We are fucked.
