If councillors believe that CCFC will leave and build a stadium outside the city (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

They simply have to vote no based just on that don't they?

If it means losing the top sports club of Coventry to an area outside the city, not governed by the city council, they have to vote against.

Coventry simply cannot allow it's own football team to be lost from the city. They also have to think of economic loss of revenue and business etc. too.

Seems to me that looking at the land issues, we could well up as much as 10 miles away and that would then mean a loss of the club to the city.

Can they really risk gambling on CCFC staying 'relatively close' to the city boundaries? There is the obvious fear that we could end up a 5-10 miles away permanently.

Forget about the Wasps thing for a minute and think just based on the real possibility fo permanently losing our football club.

 

---

[Ian1779]

They don't care - they have made that much obvious.

 

[Neutral Fan]

I've been boring folk about franchising for months though it seems people are starting to understand my points.

There must remain the risk SISU move CCFC near to Brum to get a bigger catchment area. Or maybe even London? Hell, there's some space at Adams Park, High Wycombe!

The fact is sports franchising is a businessmans wet dream and a supporters nightmare. It will only get worse I fear.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

They will have 4 years to sort out a longer rental deal. That's the best option for the club.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I've been boring folk about franchising for months though it seems people are starting to understand my points.

There must remain the risk SISU move CCFC near to Brum to get a bigger catchment area. Or maybe even London? Hell, there's some space at Adams Park, High Wycombe!

The fact is sports franchising is a businessmans wet dream and a supporters nightmare. It will only get worse I fear.

The biggest catchment area for CCFC is in Coventry.

 

[stupot07]

They will have 4 years to sort out a longer rental deal. That's the best option for the club.

And one that will confine us to a championship league one yoyo club at best. Tenants in our yellow and black stadium. Depressing, no hope no point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Rusty Trombone]

And one that will confine us to a championship league one yoyo club at best. Tenants in our yellow and black stadium. Depressing, no hope no point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I don't see how that would impact on our chances of success, anymore than trying to repay the build costs of a new stadium. In fact, I'm confident we will be far better off renting.

 

[Neutral Fan]

The biggest catchment area for CCFC is in Coventry.

And the biggest catchment for Wimbledon was in Wimbledon. And Wasps supporters are in West London.

Franchising businessmen don't give a feck for the current fans. They want real estate, 365 a year income, hotels, conferences etc and their "sports franchises" (to use ACL words) are just a means to an ends. There are potential new "Customers" wherever they go.

If SISU saw a way to make money and it involved moving CCFC to Brum or London or wherever, do you really think 7k of supporters would make them think again?

 

[stupot07]

I don't see how that would impact on our chances of success, anymore than trying to repay the build costs of a new stadium. In fact, I'm confident we will be far better off renting.

Let's see. Last season in championship, a rent only deal. Better crowds than 9 other teams, but in the lowest 3-4 turnovers in the league. Our entire turnover c£10.5m was circa a third of the three promoted teams wage budgets - reading £28m, Southampton £29m and west ham £35m+.

A long term rent only deal no revenue confines our turnover to one of the lowest on the championship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Hobo]

I've been boring folk about franchising for months though it seems people are starting to understand my points.

There must remain the risk SISU move CCFC near to Brum to get a bigger catchment area. Or maybe even London? Hell, there's some space at Adams Park, High Wycombe!

The fact is sports franchising is a businessmans wet dream and a supporters nightmare. It will only get worse I fear.

You mean like West Ham moving across London?

The problem with Wasps they are already out of their London base. Most London Rugby clubs have moved out, which suggests the costs of land and stadiums in the capital in prohibitive for them. So if you are already nomadic, Coventry/Birmingham offers a massive population to market support from and neither have a top flight rugby team. They have looked at possible sites in Birmingham so it is within their strategy.

Now I don't agree with it as I think potentially it will be detrimental to traditional Coventry teams. Long term it may be good for Wasps, but bad for their current fan base.

We can bang on about Sport and community ties....but the reality is I know people in Coventry who are Manchester Utd season ticket holders and my neighbour travels to Northampton to watch his Rugby...so people will support brands rather than tradition unfortunately.

 

[Otis]

Or as a update ....

They could just vote 'yes.'

 

[Astute]

Let's see. Last season in championship, a rent only deal. Better crowds than 9 other teams, but in the lowest 3-4 turnovers in the league. Our entire turnover c£10.5m was circa a third of the three promoted teams wage budgets - reading £28m, Southampton £29m and west ham £35m+.

A long term rent only deal no revenue confines our turnover to one of the lowest on the championship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

But what was the income of those three clubs? Where did the money come from?

 

[stupot07]

But what was the income of those three clubs? Where did the money come from?

Reading £20m+, Southampton £23m, west ham £45m all x2+ our turnover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[italiahorse]

CCFC need safeguards built into this deal.
SISU record would make this an issue for me if I was taking over the stadium.

Still hoping for a miracle where CCFC are part of the deal and ownership changes to new investors

 

[Jack Griffin]

Let's see. Last season in championship, a rent only deal. Better crowds than 9 other teams, but in the lowest 3-4 turnovers in the league. Our entire turnover c£10.5m was circa a third of the three promoted teams wage budgets - reading £28m, Southampton £29m and west ham £35m+.

A long term rent only deal no revenue confines our turnover to one of the lowest on the championship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Hold on, you are comparing wage budgets to turnover, they are not the same, Soton was financed by a billionaire.

 

[stupot07]

Hold on, you are comparing wage budgets to turnover, they are not the same, Soton was financed by a billionaire.

I know they're not the same. A later post shows that their turnovers are x2+ what ours was. My point of comparing the two is the level of outside investment needed for is to to compete to get into the PL given the limited turnover on a rent only deal means getting to PL is nearly zilch.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Jack Griffin]

I know they're not the same. A later post shows that their turnovers are x2+ what ours was. My point of comparing the two is the level of outside investment needed for is to to compete to get into the PL given the limited turnover on a rent only deal means getting to PL is nearly zilch.

Not a given, Burnley & Blackpool have snuck into the PL on low budgets in recent years.
But true, it is much less likely without the finance.
The issue then becomes about running up more debt to finance a promotion 'punt'.
If there is one thing SISU are doing well at the moment it is keeping costs down 7 avoiding additional debt.

 

[Evo1883]

If sisu went ahead and built a stadium , it would still be a lose lose situation for a number of years for coventry city .
they must owe investors millions already , and with a new stadium even more .
where is that money going to be repaid from , the club will be kept at bare minimum for years whilst debts get repaid and we will continue to suffer .
the club is fucked

 

[Malaka]

As I see it, the council would not give planning permission for a football stadium to be built when we already had one. Now it is being sold as a rugby stadium, they can now give permission for a new stadium to be build within the Coventry boundaries.

 

[Astute]

As I see it, the council would not give planning permission for a football stadium to be built when we already had one. Now it is being sold as a rugby stadium, they can now give permission for a new stadium to be build within the Coventry boundaries.

If there is a plot of land big enough that isn't greenbelt or set aside for housing and the infrastructure to go with it there wouldn't be any reason to say no. The problem starts when you look for land like this. Which was the main reason why the Ricoh got built on land that was contaminated.

 

[Astute]

I know they're not the same. A later post shows that their turnovers are x2+ what ours was. My point of comparing the two is the level of outside investment needed for is to to compete to get into the PL given the limited turnover on a rent only deal means getting to PL is nearly zilch.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I asked income. You stated outgoings.

And there are now rules coming in since then that that will make a difference unless the money is put in as a gift.

 

[Grendel]

I asked income. You stated outgoings.

And there are now rules coming in since then that that will make a difference unless the money is put in as a gift.

Those rules don't apply to the championship

 

[pw362]

Football League Financial Fair Play
Championship clubs were permitted losses of £8m (£5m funded by shareholders) in 2013-14
Clubs promoted back to the Premier League who exceeded those losses are subject to a fine.
There is a sliding scale on the next £10m of losses, with a maximum fine of £6.681m.
Once losses exceed £18m, the fine is imposed on a strict pound-for-pound basis.
Should there be an overall loss of £30m, the fine would be almost £19m. If it was £50m, the figure would be nearly £39m.

 

[stupot07]

I asked income. You stated outgoings.

And there are now rules coming in since then that that will make a difference unless the money is put in as a gift.

I'd already answered you.

Reading £20m+, Southampton £23m, west ham £45m all x2+ our turnover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

And that doesn't include profit/income from player sales - Reading £7.9m (£27.9m income), Southampton £13.4m (£36.4m income) and west ham £0.9m ( £46m income). And championship FFP is based on allowable losses, not a % of turnover.

So our lowly turnover in the championship, plus small profit on players means we're going to be nowhere near the PL on a rent only/ no revenue deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors