Of course they are both to blame. Its beyond me why anyone on here defends either of them.
Joy must never ever get her 60 million back (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Snozz_is_god
- Start date
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Exactly NW. The 'sliding scale' rent proposition sounds good, but there's never been any detail about what it was. From the SBT Q&A
6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher.
So we can assume the rent in the championship would still have been £1.2m, higher in the PL (perhaps. £1.5ish) but lower in league one and league two - that could have been £1m and £800k. (We don't know the exact levels)
Plus it mentions escalators on top of base rents related to attendance. This could have been similar to what they proposed in march:
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.
Suddenly the sliding scale rent doesn't look so good...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
mark82
Super Moderator
Words fail me.
Exactly NW. The 'sliding scale' rent proposition sounds good, but there's never been any detail about what it was. From the SBT Q&A
6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher.
So we can assume the rent in the championship would still have been £1.2m, higher in the PL (perhaps. £1.5ish) but lower in league one and league two - that could have been £1m and £800k. (We don't know the exact levels)
Plus it mentions escalators on top of base rents related to attendance. This could have been similar to what they proposed in march:
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.
Suddenly the sliding scale rent doesn't look so good...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
I've asked a few times but never seem to get an answer, can anyone from the Trust tell me who came up with the questions for the Q&A please? It's pretty much the best resource we have, a great piece of work. More stuff like this would be fantastic.
Astute
Well-Known Member
SISU have not put 60m into our club. This is just more propaganda that has been believed by some.
They have been with us for 70 months. For them to have put in 60m we would have to be losing nearly 1m a month. At the worse we were losing 500k a month. There was a debt at our club when they took over. But a lot of this got wiped out when they took over.
They have been with us for 70 months. For them to have put in 60m we would have to be losing nearly 1m a month. At the worse we were losing 500k a month. There was a debt at our club when they took over. But a lot of this got wiped out when they took over.
Stafford_SkBlue
Well-Known Member
Uptp March 2013 SISU had put in at least £8m of their own money + investors money (a few £m) early on. Probably around £10m.
If SISU wanted to walk away they would have done it last March, since then they have paid all the wages during the administration period, which has kept all the players together, unlike what happened at Portsmouth. And since administration financing Otium. I don't see them leaving in the short term.
If SISU wanted to walk away they would have done it last March, since then they have paid all the wages during the administration period, which has kept all the players together, unlike what happened at Portsmouth. And since administration financing Otium. I don't see them leaving in the short term.
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
To paraphrase Orwell..... "All sides are to blame..some more to blame than others"
Astute
Well-Known Member
None of us have a clue what they will do next. Neither will they. If they get the Ricoh freehold cheap they should make a good profit. The problem is would they keep the Ricoh and offload our club cheaply........or worse?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
WE WEREN'T IN ADMIN!!!
How many times FFS. Of course the players were paid, their contract was with Holdings, who were never in admin.
Would people stop comparing the pre-pack admin of Ltd with any football administration ever, they are nothing alike.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
ahah VOR is funny.............in a dumb shit way.
1nilandwe...
Well-Known Member
Whilst the original post smacks of lunacy, the sentiment is one the whole football world should be hoping for. As soon as SISU start turning a profit on CCFC that will validate their previous actions. No football fan anywhere should be happy to see that.
rightumpty
New Member
Now here is a man I like. What wonderous foresight. I'm with you, SISU are here for the money, so starve them of income and watch them squirm.
GET THEM OUT>
GET THEM OUT>
Astute
Well-Known Member
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
thaiskyblue
New Member
kevinleftpeg
New Member
HIGH FIVE! from me.
Astute
Well-Known Member
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Im baffled how some think its the councils fault for administration and the ten point deduction !!!
Yes the rent was high but this was set at a time the council had to reclaim build costs. Yes once the other sides of the Ricoh's income kicked in the rent should have been relaxed.
But come on the rent doesn't even amount to 10% of the ccfc so called inflated debt !!!
Maybe the big issue for Sisu is that its not debt owed to one of their own companies !!!
So Sisu stopped paying the rent they had over a year to negotiate. Plenty of time to stop the club going into administration !!
If Sisu didn't want administration they could have easily paid up the money owed. Some people on here conveniently forget this fact !!
So Sisu are responsible for administration and the ten point deduction that followed fact !!!
Yes the rent was high but this was set at a time the council had to reclaim build costs. Yes once the other sides of the Ricoh's income kicked in the rent should have been relaxed.
But come on the rent doesn't even amount to 10% of the ccfc so called inflated debt !!!
Maybe the big issue for Sisu is that its not debt owed to one of their own companies !!!
So Sisu stopped paying the rent they had over a year to negotiate. Plenty of time to stop the club going into administration !!
If Sisu didn't want administration they could have easily paid up the money owed. Some people on here conveniently forget this fact !!
So Sisu are responsible for administration and the ten point deduction that followed fact !!!