Spaghetti isn't tripe, it's pasta! LOL!!! Just trying to lighten the mood, guys! Forgive me!!!
You must have spaghetti for brains.
Am I supposed to respond to this tripe?
Or you could stay in an office too large with an unsustainable rent and go bust losing a 100% of your business?
Those that can't, teach.
Spaghetti isn't tripe, it's pasta! LOL!!! Just trying to lighten the mood, guys! Forgive me!!!
You can't use the fact that they made ridiculous managerial appointments to justify ACL charging them an excessive rent. Even though the point on its own is valid.
You think that the rent would cause us to go bust? Might wanna check our accounts.
Not sure what my profession has to do anything. But Id assume as you obviously wouldn't pass the required Maths test you're even lower down than "those that can't"
You can't use the fact that they made ridiculous managerial appointments to justify ACL charging them an excessive rent. Even though the point on its own is valid.
So, it's not about rent, or revenues. It's about SISU not being able to run a football club during their time. Now they want out and need an asset to act as the pretty wrapping paper for their exit strategy.
Surely, we all see that now?
And if that's the case, those who defend their actions are justifying an investment business mitigating it's losses at the expense of the football club; by threatening it's very existence, or moving it away from it's home by means of 'leverage'. That's the primary wrong, surely, on every level?
And if that's the case, those who defend their actions are justifying an investment business mitigating it's losses at the expense of the football club; by threatening it's very existence, or moving it away from it's home by means of 'leverage'. That's the primary wrong, surely, on every level?
Frankly I think this move has given the club an extension of life (I leave the judgement on whether that is worthwhile to others).
It has no right to exist as is, by all rights should already have been wiped from the football map in its entirity.
So no I don't think the move threatens its very existence, that's been threatened long before.
For at least the past decade.
I can use it to contextualise a number of reasons we are where we are. To concentrate extensively on the rent is blinkered in the extreme. As soon as you start to candidly disassemble the facts of the bigger picture, the holes are so wide as to be ridiculous.
For example; the rent at £1.2m was preposterous was it? I actually think it was way too high; but even at £1.2m; looking at home gates when SISU took charge at 18K, that's £66 per supporter attending, per season. We've now moved to Sixfields, and agreed to pay £170K for 2K supporters; which equates to £85 per supporter for season. So, the original rent against actual crowds actually looks not too bad - even at the Ricoh's oft-quoted 'preposterous' levels.
Well, maybe it's about revenues, eh? Well, no. We get very little at Sixfields, and due to every viable business distancing themselves from the club like a Frenchman does from a hard day's work, we can't get a shirt sponsor. What was the last deal worth? £250K a season over three seasons? What now? Zero. Oh. Okay, it can't be revenues then.
Losses. The last set of accounts filed - late - showed a pre-tax loss of £6.7m. So, these terrible, unfair rental payments that everyone keeps on banging on about to the exclusion of all others would have only accounted less than 20% of those losses. Why aren't people so bothered about the 80%? Or how about total losses over SISU's term? Those reported by the administrator, compared the the total rent charged over term, showed that the rent represented no more than 10% of the total losses accrued.
So, it's not about rent, or revenues. It's about SISU not being able to run a football club during their time. Now they want out and need an asset to act as the pretty wrapping paper for their exit strategy.
Surely, we all see that now?
And if that's the case, those who defend their actions are justifying an investment business mitigating it's losses at the expense of the football club; by threatening it's very existence, or moving it away from it's home by means of 'leverage'. That's the primary wrong, surely, on every level?
Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.
Ah, traditionally you should just close your posts with 'end of'. Everyone knows that means that you're so right that there's no point in debating any further.
Let's just look at that 'excessive' claim. It wasn't excessive when SISU took over, or indeed for the first few years of their tenure.
And it wasn't excessive when the club got it down to £400k and Fisher said 'gentlemen, we have a deal'.
It only became excessive when SISU decided that the only way forward for the club was to distress ACL.
At £400,000 per season, then per seat the rent is about half the amount that we're paying at Northampton. (Assuming £170k/season, 7,000 seats at Sixfields). At £150k per season at the Ricoh, then CCFC are paying five times as much at Northampton, per seat.
Damn Northampton, and their 'excessive' rent forcing the club into penury, eh. Stop paying, that's what we should do, and demand they give us the freehold.
In the meantime remind me again how much profit ACL have paid themselves as dividends. If the rent was excessive they'd have been coining it in, surely.
And you do know how much SISU have levied in management fees and interest, right? Now there's excessive...
Frankly I think this move has given the club an extension of life (I leave the judgement on whether that is worthwhile to others).
It has no right to exist as is, by all rights should already have been wiped from the football map in its entirity.
So no I don't think the move threatens its very existence, that's been threatened long before.
For at least the past decade.
The rent was in effect subsidising ACL's mortgage. That's why they haven't paid a dividend.
Right, that'll be the mortgage they paid to build the stadium. So the rent reflected the cost of the build then, rather than just being some exercise in excessive profiteering as you're claiming.
Are they a buy-to-let landlord then?
If CCFC are subsidising the mortgage they paid towards building the stadium, why do they keep claiming that they paid for it?
Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.
Not quite sure what you're saying here. ACL are obviously a landlord (or were), and they own the arena (or at least the leasehold).
You claimed the rent was excessive, but seem to accept that it covered the mortgage and that ACL didn't make a huge amount of money out of it. Again, how is that excessive?
Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.
Not quite sure what you're saying here. ACL are obviously a landlord (or were), and they own the arena (or at least the leasehold).
You claimed the rent was excessive, but seem to accept that it covered the mortgage and that ACL didn't make a huge amount of money out of it. Again, how is that excessive?
I've always thought that people use terms like 'end if story' in association with a poor debating stance. QED
Do you consider the quoted sixfields rent of £170k excessive?
Even if the rent had stayed at £1.3m the move to sixfields is currently costing the club around £2.2m a year in revenue. Am I right in what your basically saying is you would rather lose that revenue than pay ACL £1.3m?
Do you consider the quoted sixfields rent of £170k excessive?
Even if the rent had stayed at £1.3m the move to sixfields is currently costing the club around £2.2m a year in revenue. Am I right in what your basically saying is you would rather lose that revenue than pay ACL £1.3m?
You cannot seriously believe a new stadium is going to be built??Weren't they tied into an agreement that had something like 42 years left to run? 42 x £1.3m is an awful lot of money. I'm not so sure temporarily moving to Sixfields is a false economy. Short-term, yes. Long-term probably quite sensible.
Weren't they tied into an agreement that had something like 42 years left to run? 42 x £1.3m is an awful lot of money. I'm not so sure temporarily moving to Sixfields is a false economy. Short-term, yes. Long-term probably quite sensible.
You cannot seriously believe a new stadium is going to be built??
You cannot seriously believe a new stadium is going to be built??
And thanks to SISU's successful rent strike, they were looking at a deal of 450k a year tops. But I suppose it suits your viewpoint to conveniently forget such details.
Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.
The rent was in effect subsidising ACL's mortgage. That's why they haven't paid a dividend.
Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.
(the one thing we all agree pro shitsu or pro NOPM)
The principle of not paying £1.3m is right but I do take your point regarding it being a bit of a false economy.
And where did I say I believe a new stadium is going to be built?
It seems that the standard argument of many on this site goes like this:
"I think none of the parties in this saga are blameless."
"So you're saying you trust Sisu to build a new stadium then?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?