If SISU want the matchday revenues why don't KCIC do this? (1 Viewer)

Pusb1 · Jul 7, 2014

Ok, rather than offering to pay the rent at the Ricoh.... which our timmmy now says isn't a problem, why dont kcic let SISU pay the rent at the reduced costs previously offered by the council, and instead KCIC directly match and pay to SISU whatever the matchday revenues are- a figure made available by the company running the various outlets?

Aswell as presumably costing KCIC less than forking out the rent, it will also allow SISU to indirectly receive all these matchday revenues, whilst still allowing the various companies to run the matchday catering?

:thinking about::thinking about::thinking about::thinking about:

blueflint · Jul 7, 2014

when will you realise its not match day revenues its the Ricoh itself don't fall for the smokescreens

limoncello · Jul 7, 2014

Pusb1 said:
Ok, rather than offering to pay the rent at the Ricoh.... which our timmmy now says isn't a problem, why dont kcic let SISU pay the rent at the reduced costs previously offered by the council, and instead KCIC directly match and pay to SISU whatever the matchday revenues are- a figure made available by the company running the various outlets?

Aswell as presumably costing KCIC less than forking out the rent, it will also allow SISU to indirectly receive all these matchday revenues, whilst still allowing the various companies to run the matchday catering?

:thinking about::thinking about::thinking about::thinking about:

Sounds good to me.

Michael?

MICHAEL?

Samo · Jul 7, 2014

blueflint said:
when will you realise its not match day revenues its the Ricoh itself don't fall for the smokescreens

It might be fun to offer it though... just to see what the next excuse would be!

skybluetony176 · Jul 7, 2014

Samo said:
It might be fun to offer it though... just to see what the next excuse would be!

That would be the best reason to do it.

Whatever excuse they come up with some will swallow it though, you can be sure of that.

skybluetony176 · Jul 7, 2014

limoncello said:
Sounds good to me.

Michael?

MICHAEL?

Perhaps yourself, Grendull and the rest of the KCIC naysayers could pick up the gauntlet and run with this. It's about time you lot did something constructive rather than just slate the ones trying.

limoncello · Jul 7, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Perhaps yourself, Grendull and the rest of the KCIC naysayers could pick up the gauntlet and run with this. It's about time you lot did something constructive rather than just slate the ones trying.

Good one. I said it sounds good to me, explain how that makes me a naysayer. And if Michael PMs me the details of the finances available I'd be happy to get the ball rolling.

Grendel · Jul 7, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Perhaps yourself, Grendull and the rest of the KCIC naysayers could pick up the gauntlet and run with this. It's about time you lot did something constructive rather than just slate the ones trying.

Ok I will commit to pay al the revenues personally if the club come back unless of course the revenue exceeds £5 a game.

There, about the same "offer" isn't it.

Kingokings204 · Jul 7, 2014

Pusb1 said:
Ok, rather than offering to pay the rent at the Ricoh.... which our timmmy now says isn't a problem, why dont kcic let SISU pay the rent at the reduced costs previously offered by the council, and instead KCIC directly match and pay to SISU whatever the matchday revenues are- a figure made available by the company running the various outlets?

Aswell as presumably costing KCIC less than forking out the rent, it will also allow SISU to indirectly receive all these matchday revenues, whilst still allowing the various companies to run the matchday catering?

:thinking about::thinking about::thinking about::thinking about:

Ian1779 · Jul 7, 2014

blueflint said:
when will you realise its not match day revenues its the Ricoh itself don't fall for the smokescreens

No it's the non-matchday revenues as well.... when will you realise?

Calista · Jul 7, 2014

Ian1779 said:
No it's the non-matchday revenues as well.... when will you realise?

So why does Mr. Fisher keep saying "matchday revenues"? That is, when he's not saying “the real value is not just in the stadium but land enablement and what is around it”.

I think the OP has put forward a good proposal, which might prompt SISU to finally tell everyone what they ACTUALLY WANT. It would help to know.

bigfatronssba · Jul 7, 2014

Ian1779 said:
No it's the non-matchday revenues as well.... when will you realise?

So what non-matchday revenues do they currently get at Sixfields?

Tonylinc · Jul 7, 2014

I've got an idea!.....why don't Shitzu put together a valid and reasonable offer for the Ricoh freehold and all interests therein thus acquiring all revenues therefrom?.....God. I'm a genius!

Ian1779 · Jul 7, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
So what non-matchday revenues do they currently get at Sixfields?

As much as they got at the Ricoh..... precisely fuck all.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 7, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
So what non-matchday revenues do they currently get at Sixfields?

They've got a batch bar for the builders

bigfatronssba · Jul 7, 2014

Ian1779 said:
As much as they got at the Ricoh..... precisely fuck all.

So apart from spite, what reason (in principle) would they have to turn down a proposal like this?

Ian1779 · Jul 7, 2014

Norman Lockhart said:
So why does Mr. Fisher keep saying "matchday revenues"? That is, when he's not saying “the real value is not just in the stadium but land enablement and what is around it”.

I think the OP has put forward a good proposal, which might prompt SISU to finally tell everyone what they ACTUALLY WANT. It would help to know.

Because it's a start point. The matchday revenues are important but the non-matchday has far more potential. Why do you think they lined up AEG to come in and run the complex?

Moff · Jul 7, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
So apart from spite, what reason (in principle) would they have to turn down a proposal like this?

I sincerely doubt there is much apart from spite, aside from that they are nasty vindictive bastards who dont give a f*ck about the club. Seppala and Fisher couldnt give a shit and someone one day will get the better of them, and hopefully then it will wipe that stupid half witted smile off his face.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 7, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Because it's a start point. The matchday revenues are important but the non-matchday has far more potential. Why do you think they lined up AEG to come in and run the complex?

So if they got it all they wouldn't actually need the football club:thinking about:Interesting

Ian1779 · Jul 7, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
So apart from spite, what reason (in principle) would they have to turn down a proposal like this?

What proposal? That KCIC pay all the matchday revenue? Will there be a caveat on it like the rent deal where they only paid up to 5K attendance.

'KCIC will pay for the first 250 pies, 300 hot dogs and then ACL get the rest'?

23 games with a 10K attendance as a minimum - if average spend per head was between £1 and £2 that's going to equate to far more than KCIC were ever going to pay in rent.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 7, 2014

Ian1779 said:
What proposal? That KCIC pay all the matchday revenue? Will there be a caveat on it like the rent deal where they only paid up to 5K attendance.

'KCIC will pay for the first 250 pies, 300 hot dogs and then ACL get the rest'?

23 games with a 10K attendance as a minimum - if average spend per head was between £1 and £2 that's going to equate to far more than KCIC were ever going to pay in rent.

Maths was never your strong point admit it

bigfatronssba · Jul 7, 2014

Ian1779 said:
What proposal? That KCIC pay all the matchday revenue? Will there be a caveat on it like the rent deal where they only paid up to 5K attendance.

'KCIC will pay for the first 250 pies, 300 hot dogs and then ACL get the rest'?

23 games with a 10K attendance as a minimum - if average spend per head was between £1 and £2 that's going to equate to far more than KCIC were ever going to pay in rent.

KCIC pay F&B's value based on 23 games at a 2k attendance, this will mean sisu are not out of pocket. I imagine the pitiful amount being spent on F&B's at Sixfields is within the KCIC budget.

Ian1779 · Jul 7, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
KCIC pay F&B's value based on 23 games at a 2k attendance, this will mean sisu are not out of pocket. I imagine the pitiful amount being spent on F&B's at Sixfields is within the KCIC budget.

What? The offer relates to the matchday revenue at the Ricoh - not Sixfields.

mrtrench · Jul 7, 2014

KCIC wasn't offering to pay the rent. It was offering to pay the rent if crowds were less than 5k. Michael also declined to give any details about what would be paid if crowds were greater than 5k - leading one to believe:

1. The offer was all a smokescreen.
2. There wasn't really any money on the table.
3. So there will be no new offer which would result in them actually paying out.

I'm not saying that SISU is not disingenuous - but KCIC is too.

bigfatronssba · Jul 7, 2014

Ian1779 said:
What? The offer relates to the matchday revenue at the Ricoh - not Sixfields.

The point of any offer is to match what sisu are getting at sixfields. I don't see whats so difficult to understand about that.

Ian1779 · Jul 7, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
The point of any offer is to match what sisu are getting at sixfields. I don't see whats so difficult to understand about that.

Except that's not what it says is it?

You can't apply the rent deal to a matchday revenue scenario. It doesn't stack up.

Paxman II · Jul 7, 2014

OMG now I've heard it all. Clearly some on hear and it saddens me to say so, have not got a clue about the world of commerce, the commercial world or any business acumen what so ever.
I'm sorry but this need to keep finding reason's for SISU aka CCFC to accept an offer that is fantasy and not in any way can be serious is becoming laughable by the minute.

SISU kaa CCFC made a stance against the rent and income streams of the Ricoh arena. failed to get an agreement to suit and took the club away denying ACL income in the process. It was hoped the sides would see sense and negotiate which both failed to achieve. Both these egotistic sides dug their heels in to see who would break first. So far no one has developed any advantage.

The longer it goes the bigger the demands will be. ACL are just the management arm operating the Ricoh with the council 50% owners of ACL and they are also the freeholders of the Ricoh, for which they did not pay out £113m squids for buy lets not forget!

They offered reduced rents allegedly through third parties to CCFC but failed to do so long before this when the football club made clear the rent was too high. Without the football club as an anchor tenant the Ricoh loses value and ACL loses value. They need each other but the council do not need ACL. SISU know this but the council refuse to budge.

That's where we are at. SISU will not rent the pith again until they get more of the stadium income and prefer no doubt ACL were gone and a deal for the football club to rightfully claim it's place at the Ricoh is found. If there is a price the council want for this then how much? Lets hear it and lets see if SISU want to stump up the dosh for it.

No amount of KCik or whatever it is, armies on the hill or marches thru town with naked ladies will change that.
I said a long time ago the council have to find a way to keep the club at the Ricoh by offering some form of ownership which they deserve as the original instigators of the Ricoh and initial funding that went into it and not total disregard. Yes SISU have shown scant regard in the past and their actions now are highly questionable but they will not be owners forever but they can be rid of when they have a piece of the action the club deserves and then SISU as owners may leave and new owners arrive who would not arrive if we don't have a stadium.

I'm not a SISU lover believe me but as harsh as they have been see their point but the council and ACL refusal to budge on the rights of the stadium is just as unhelpful. I support my football club getting back to the Ricoh and to that end we must all realise it's not just SISU but the council. I don't expect the council to give it away but I expect them to offer it to the football club!

bigfatronssba · Jul 7, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Except that's not what it says is it?

You can't apply the rent deal to a matchday revenue scenario. It doesn't stack up.

Cant is a word only used when looking for reasons not to do something.

If the will is there then a deal can be done.

However we all know that Sisu's only interest is conspiring against the business interests of ACL, and that is the real reason as to why a deal wont be done.

bigfatronssba · Jul 7, 2014

Paxman II said:
OMG now I've heard it all. Clearly some on hear and it saddens me to say so, have not got a clue about the world of commerce, the commercial world or any business acumen what so ever.
I'm sorry but this need to keep finding reason's for SISU aka CCFC to accept an offer that is fantasy and not in any way can be serious is becoming laughable by the minute.

SISU kaa CCFC made a stance against the rent and income streams of the Ricoh arena. failed to get an agreement to suit and took the club away denying ACL income in the process. It was hoped the sides would see sense and negotiate which both failed to achieve. Both these egotistic sides dug their heels in to see who would break first. So far no one has developed any advantage.

The longer it goes the bigger the demands will be. ACL are just the management arm operating the Ricoh with the council 50% owners of ACL and they are also the freeholders of the Ricoh, for which they did not pay out £113m squids for buy lets not forget!

They offered reduced rents allegedly through third parties to CCFC but failed to do so long before this when the football club made clear the rent was too high. Without the football club as an anchor tenant the Ricoh loses value and ACL loses value. They need each other but the council do not need ACL. SISU know this but the council refuse to budge.

That's where we are at. SISU will not rent the pith again until they get more of the stadium income and prefer no doubt ACL were gone and a deal for the football club to rightfully claim it's place at the Ricoh is found. If there is a price the council want for this then how much? Lets hear it and lets see if SISU want to stump up the dosh for it.

No amount of KCik or whatever it is, armies on the hill or marches thru town with naked ladies will change that.
I said a long time ago the council have to find a way to keep the club at the Ricoh by offering some form of ownership which they deserve as the original instigators of the Ricoh and initial funding that went into it and not total disregard. Yes SISU have shown scant regard in the past and their actions now are highly questionable but they will not be owners forever but they can be rid of when they have a piece of the action the club deserves and then SISU as owners may leave and new owners arrive who would not arrive if we don't have a stadium.

I'm not a SISU lover believe me but as harsh as they have been see their point but the council and ACL refusal to budge on the rights of the stadium is just as unhelpful. I support my football club getting back to the Ricoh and to that end we must all realise it's not just SISU but the council. I don't expect the council to give it away but I expect them to offer it to the football club!

And still some people expect the council to be the ones to offer the olive branch (even though they have done umpteen times).

Just one question, at what point have sisu made any concessions in there demands?

Tonylinc · Jul 7, 2014

Paxman II said:
OMG now I've heard it all. Clearly some on hear and it saddens me to say so, have not got a clue about the world of commerce, the commercial world or any business acumen what so ever.
I'm sorry but this need to keep finding reason's for SISU aka CCFC to accept an offer that is fantasy and not in any way can be serious is becoming laughable by the minute.

SISU kaa CCFC made a stance against the rent and income streams of the Ricoh arena. failed to get an agreement to suit and took the club away denying ACL income in the process. It was hoped the sides would see sense and negotiate which both failed to achieve. Both these egotistic sides dug their heels in to see who would break first. So far no one has developed any advantage.

The longer it goes the bigger the demands will be. ACL are just the management arm operating the Ricoh with the council 50% owners of ACL and they are also the freeholders of the Ricoh, for which they did not pay out £113m squids for buy lets not forget!

They offered reduced rents allegedly through third parties to CCFC but failed to do so long before this when the football club made clear the rent was too high. Without the football club as an anchor tenant the Ricoh loses value and ACL loses value. They need each other but the council do not need ACL. SISU know this but the council refuse to budge.

That's where we are at. SISU will not rent the pith again until they get more of the stadium income and prefer no doubt ACL were gone and a deal for the football club to rightfully claim it's place at the Ricoh is found. If there is a price the council want for this then how much? Lets hear it and lets see if SISU want to stump up the dosh for it.

No amount of KCik or whatever it is, armies on the hill or marches thru town with naked ladies will change that.
I said a long time ago the council have to find a way to keep the club at the Ricoh by offering some form of ownership which they deserve as the original instigators of the Ricoh and initial funding that went into it and not total disregard. Yes SISU have shown scant regard in the past and their actions now are highly questionable but they will not be owners forever but they can be rid of when they have a piece of the action the club deserves and then SISU as owners may leave and new owners arrive who would not arrive if we don't have a stadium.

I'm not a SISU lover believe me but as harsh as they have been see their point but the council and ACL refusal to budge on the rights of the stadium is just as unhelpful. I support my football club getting back to the Ricoh and to that end we must all realise it's not just SISU but the council. I don't expect the council to give it away but I expect them to offer it to the football club!

Accept all that you say BUT the offer MUST come from Shitzu first.....have I missed that bit?

letsallsingtogether · Jul 7, 2014

Paxman II said:
OMG now I've heard it all. Clearly some on hear and it saddens me to say so, have not got a clue about the world of commerce, the commercial world or any business acumen what so ever.
I'm sorry but this need to keep finding reason's for SISU aka CCFC to accept an offer that is fantasy and not in any way can be serious is becoming laughable by the minute.

SISU kaa CCFC made a stance against the rent and income streams of the Ricoh arena. failed to get an agreement to suit and took the club away denying ACL income in the process. It was hoped the sides would see sense and negotiate which both failed to achieve. Both these egotistic sides dug their heels in to see who would break first. So far no one has developed any advantage.

The longer it goes the bigger the demands will be. ACL are just the management arm operating the Ricoh with the council 50% owners of ACL and they are also the freeholders of the Ricoh, for which they did not pay out £113m squids for buy lets not forget!

They offered reduced rents allegedly through third parties to CCFC but failed to do so long before this when the football club made clear the rent was too high. Without the football club as an anchor tenant the Ricoh loses value and ACL loses value. They need each other but the council do not need ACL. SISU know this but the council refuse to budge.

That's where we are at. SISU will not rent the pith again until they get more of the stadium income and prefer no doubt ACL were gone and a deal for the football club to rightfully claim it's place at the Ricoh is found. If there is a price the council want for this then how much? Lets hear it and lets see if SISU want to stump up the dosh for it.

No amount of KCik or whatever it is, armies on the hill or marches thru town with naked ladies will change that.
I said a long time ago the council have to find a way to keep the club at the Ricoh by offering some form of ownership which they deserve as the original instigators of the Ricoh and initial funding that went into it and not total disregard. Yes SISU have shown scant regard in the past and their actions now are highly questionable but they will not be owners forever but they can be rid of when they have a piece of the action the club deserves and then SISU as owners may leave and new owners arrive who would not arrive if we don't have a stadium.

I'm not a SISU lover believe me but as harsh as they have been see their point but the council and ACL refusal to budge on the rights of the stadium is just as unhelpful. I support my football club getting back to the Ricoh and to that end we must all realise it's not just SISU but the council. I don't expect the council to give it away but I expect them to offer it to the football club!

I too would like them to sell it to the football club and not one of the arms that own it.
Coventry City need the Ricoh they Don't need or want Sisu.

skybluefred · Jul 7, 2014

Moff said:
I sincerely doubt there is much apart from spite, aside from that they are nasty vindictive bastards who dont give a f*ck about the club. Seppala and Fisher couldnt give a shit and someone one day will get the better of them, and hopefully then it will wipe that stupid half witted smile off his face.

Good grief Moff one of the best posts I have seen on this forum,,so good I had to read it THREE times and it got better each time. Very well said.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 7, 2014

letsallsingtogether said:
I too would like them to sell it to the football club and not one of the arms that own it.
Coventry City need the Ricoh they Don't need or want Sisu.

No what we need is a new stadium I'm really looking forward to it:claping hands:

Ian1779 · Jul 7, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
Cant is a word only used when looking for reasons not to do something.

If the will is there then a deal can be done.

However we all know that Sisu's only interest is conspiring against the business interests of ACL, and that is the real reason as to why a deal wont be done.

I agree about needing a will to get a deal done. Said deal has to be far better than the half baked ideas served up so far.

letsallsingtogether · Jul 7, 2014

Well I brought a brick for the Ricoh.

Fuck off if you think I buying any for Tim and co

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
No what we need is a new stadium I'm really looking forward to it:claping hands:

If SISU want the matchday revenues why don't KCIC do this? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency