Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

[italiahorse]

Would you not need to know the details before concluding it is a bad deal? This sort of deal seems increasingly popular so there must be a decent upside to it.

But instead of using all the shop income in the calculation we can only use the percentage we are given.

 

---

[letsallsingtogether]

The Arena Shopping Park is owned by Tesco, although I believe Aviva took a stake a few years back, and managed by GVA Grimley. The shop itself is leased from BWD Retail. The shop is operated by Just Sports.

I have no idea what the deal is between Just Sports an CCFC although several clubs have a similar arrangement with them so I can't imagine its a terrible deal.

Oh you don't know what the deal is but you can't see it being terrible?

 

[covmark]

Oh you don't know what the deal is but you can't see it being terrible?

Oh you don't know what the deal is but you can see it being terrible?

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[letsallsingtogether]

But instead of using all the shop income in the calculation we can only use the percentage we are given.

So they saved a few quid on not hiring any staff and not paying any rent on the shop.
But in turn employee people to sell tickets at a ticket outlet they rent from CRFC.
Fucking genius.
Maybe they should bring this up at the next SCG meeting to see what the logic in this master stroke is.

 

[chiefdave]

But instead of using all the shop income in the calculation we can only use the percentage we are given.

Shop income would be classed under commercial income so would be net anyway. Given that Just Sports will have lower costs than if we ran it ourselves chances are there is very little difference. In fact the ability of Just Sports to provide a better range of stock may even increase the net figure.

 

[chiefdave]

Oh you don't know what the deal is but you can't see it being terrible?

If these deals were terrible why would so many clubs be entering into them?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Oh you don't know what the deal is but you can see it being terrible?

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Well it not as good as keeping 100% is it?
And did I say it was terrible?
All I said was we sold off the rights but hey twist it as you please.

 

[chiefdave]

So they saved a few quid on not hiring any staff and not paying any rent on the shop.
But in turn employee people to sell tickets at a ticket outlet they rent from CRFC.

Have they really taken on additional staff or just moved the ticketing operation from Lockhurst Lane to make it more accessible?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

If these deals were terrible why would so many clubs be entering into them?

Depends on each clubs circumstances surely.
We need all the money we can get, so wouldnt be as good as selling them using existing staff from one rented location.

 

[italiahorse]

If these deals were terrible why would so many clubs be entering into them?

We would need to get 40% back to have the same FFP calculation value.
I accept that depending on the deal it could be financially beneficial.

A bit like renting off Wasps might be.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Have they really taken on additional staff or just moved the ticketing operation from Lockhurst Lane to make it more accessible?

Never said they had?

 

[chiefdave]

We would need to get 40% back to have the same FFP calculation value.

40% of what, revenue or profit? As I said this is commercial revenue so a net figure is required for FFP. Therefore what you need to compare is the net figure from the Gallagher store compared to the amount the club receive from Just Sports. I would suggest those two figures will not be too far apart.

 

[chiefdave]

Never said they had?

So they saved a few quid on not hiring any staff and not paying any rent on the shop.
But in turn employee people to sell tickets at a ticket outlet they rent from CRFC.
Fucking genius.

That would imply the saving is offset by employee costs, not the case if it just a change of location for an existing employee.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Is our club shop the smallest in the football league ?

The pro SISU anti CCC posters on here what do you expect to gain from a SISU victory over CCC ? How will this improve CCFC going forward ? There is so much passion involved in the defence of SISU's actions v CCC that there must be a clear benefit.

 

[chiefdave]

Is our club shop the smallest in the football league ?

Off the top of my head Brentford, Crawley and Barnet are all smaller. Sure there's more.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

That would imply the saving is offset by employee costs, not the case if it just a change of location for an existing employee.

But I never said they had employed anymore.
You are the one that brought up the merchandising, shop debate by implying it was someone else's fault that ours is fucked up.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Off the top of my head Brentford, Crawley and Barnet are all smaller. Sure there's more.

2 former non-league clubs and the mighty Brentford maybe SISU aren't that bad after all. By the way hsve those 3 clubs got a ticket office and a club shop near at their ground ?

 

[robbiethemole]

poxy Port Vale do, looks much like we USED to have

 

[Calista]

ACL was 50% owned by CCC and 50% owned by Higgs. However they weren't running it day to day, it had its own management etc.

ACL was in debt in the form of the Yorkshire Bank loan. There had been an agreement made that any profit would be used to make overpayments on the loan to get it paid off ASAP. Presumably to reduce the amount of interest paid.

If CCFC purchased 50% of ACL nothing at all would change. Yes the rent would be going to a company we owned 50% of but we would still be paying the same and getting no more back. Of course at some point down the line when the loan was paid off we would get a share of the profits but that was 15 plus years away based on previous years.

I guess you could make the arguement that they would have more influence and ultimately as shareholders they would have influence over who was on the board. The problem would be with 50/50 ownership you need cooperation or everything gets stuck in a stalemate.

What we really needed was to own 51%.

I appreciate the trouble you took answering my question Dave, and can see what you mean now.

I still believe that SISU got this completely wrong. People can say the stadium business was worthless as much as they like, but IMO it was (and is) crucial to the future of the football club. If they were going to buy the club they surely had to budget for an immediate half share – if not at the formula price, then at a negotiated price that the charity were happy with.

Having bought in, they’d have been on the inside, able to push for better terms for the club (rent, costs, revenues). I’m sure Grendel has a valid point about the Council veto. But I’m talking about the early days before everything broke down – if SISU were playing their cards right, being constructive and helping to improve the business, I can see no reason why the Council would pursue any agenda against them. I reckon by now SISU would have control.

When they just needed some sensible politics to get what they wanted, they brought ought their weapons of choice – endless delay and the financial thumbscrews. After the bail-out Higgs had done, they didn’t deserve or expect to have the sell-back price whittled down by financial smart-arses.

 

[Calista]

Off the top of my head Brentford, Crawley and Barnet are all smaller. Sure there's more.

Off the top of your head?! My mum told me never to trust a man who can instantly recall the floorspaces of sporting retail outlets

 

[Nick]

I appreciate the trouble you took answering my question Dave, and can see what you mean now.

I still believe that SISU got this completely wrong. People can say the stadium business was worthless as much as they like, but IMO it was (and is) crucial to the future of the football club. If they were going to buy the club they surely had to budget for an immediate half share – if not at the formula price, then at a negotiated price that the charity were happy with.

Having bought in, they’d have been on the inside, able to push for better terms for the club (rent, costs, revenues). I’m sure Grendel has a valid point about the Council veto. But I’m talking about the early days before everything broke down – if SISU were playing their cards right, being constructive and helping to improve the business, I can see no reason why the Council would pursue any agenda against them. I reckon by now SISU would have control.

When they just needed some sensible politics to get what they wanted, they brought ought their weapons of choice – endless delay and the financial thumbscrews. After the bail-out Higgs had done, they didn’t deserve or expect to have the sell-back price whittled down by financial smart-arses.

But SISU were the preferred bidder because of the stadium (or their lack of interest at the time) weren't they? Others were interested but wanted the Ricoh too IIRC.

 

[dongonzalos]

But SISU were the preferred bidder because of the stadium (or their lack of interest at the time) weren't they? Others were interested but wanted the Ricoh too IIRC.

I think he is criticising their negotiation style. Suggesting the council didn't wake one morning with this "SISU out" campaign that they are accused of

 

[Calista]

They have never said they would not do the deal. Fisher made a glib comment after the event and that is not the same thing.

When Tim is being glib, he likes to be quite specific as well doesn’t he?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/23/coventry-city-wasps-ricoh-arena
“City’s chief executive, Tim Fisher, insists they do not regret failing to buy the Ricoh, saying they could not agree to taking it on, as Wasps have done, not only for £5.4m but with the council’s £14m loan on the stadium still to pay.”

As far as I can see, SISU have been terrified of that loan from day one. They wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole - not when they bought CCFC, not when they misjudged the offer to Higgs in 2012 and not when Wasps stepped in. That’s because they have always regarded ACL as worthless, even though it was crucial to CCFC’s future.

btw to save anyone the bother of the “you only believe Fisher when it suits you” line, I have never called him a liar.

 

[Calista]

But SISU were the preferred bidder because of the stadium (or their lack of interest at the time) weren't they? Others were interested but wanted the Ricoh too IIRC.

Dunno Nick, you may be right – it’s getting late

Like everyone else, I’d love to know the reasons why all this happened. And I find it hard to go with the theory that “the Council” (i.e. professional officers, and members of all parties) have been pursuing some kind of vendetta against CCFC, over a sustained period of a decade or more.

 

[Astute]

But SISU were the preferred bidder because of the stadium (or their lack of interest at the time) weren't they? Others were interested but wanted the Ricoh too IIRC.

The others walked away when they found out how bad things were at our club. Ranson wanted the Ricoh. SISU wanted the Prem then got cold feet when they saw how much of a gamble it was IIRC

 

[SkyBlueZack]

The manhattan group walked away because the council would not sell the stadium. There reasons for not selling are only known to them. It's folly to think sisu could have just breezed in and bought the stadium. The council preferred sisu as they didn't want the stadium. Sisu didn't want it cos the premiership promised more money. We know there driven by money so that's little surprise.

 

[Sick Boy]

Is our club shop the smallest in the football league ?

The pro SISU anti CCC posters on here what do you expect to gain from a SISU victory over CCC ? How will this improve CCFC going forward ? There is so much passion involved in the defence of SISU's actions v CCC that there must be a clear benefit.

There is no pro sisu posters, those who appear pro sisu to you are those who are not letting the council off the hook.

 

[Sick Boy]

The others walked away when they found out how bad things were at our club. Ranson wanted the Ricoh. SISU wanted the Prem then got cold feet when they saw how much of a gamble it was IIRC

Yet more myths and bullshit surrounding 'uncle Ray'. It was well documented at the time that he didn't want the Ricoh and saw it as unimportant.

 

[skybluetony176]

There is no pro sisu posters, those who appear pro sisu to you are those who are not letting the council off the hook.

By letting SISU of the hook. Good plan.

 

[skybluetony176]

Yet more myths and bullshit surrounding 'uncle Ray'. It was well documented at the time that he didn't want the Ricoh and saw it as unimportant.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but in his very first interview at the club on the very day SISU took over wasn't he sat in the arena talking to midlands today and pretty much the first thing to come out of his mouth was something along the lines of look around you, the club needs to own this fantastic stadium?

Didn't like the bloke personally before you start saying something stupid like I'm only saying that because I love uncle Ray. But pretty sure I remember him saying that when he first arrived.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The others walked away when they found out how bad things were at our club. Ranson wanted the Ricoh. SISU wanted the Prem then got cold feet when they saw how much of a gamble it was IIRC

Ahem.

City council leader Ken Taylor revealed that two other "derisory" bids had been received from two other firms.
One, called Sisu, had offered #15million.
The other was from a firm called Shapiro, which offered #26million but wanted the club to pay off its debts and the city council to give it a longer lease on the Ricoh Arena and some spare land to the north of the site.
Mr McGuigan said that deal would have cost the council #4million of taxpayers' money and left the Alan Edward Higgs charity #2.5million out of pocket.

In other words Calista, the Higgs share at a reduced price deviating from formula was non-negotiable until this all kicked off. Does sound much like the Wasps deal in terms of longer lease and lower purchase price however. (Edit - worth noting a 'derisory' offer hardly suggests the council embraced the SISU deal for the club, either!) SISU's bid was less capital, but not incuding the stadium. This, then, allows me to move to the following...

As for Ranson, it was his decision to spunk cash on players rather than the ground.

But Mr Ranson has said Sisu continues to be long-term investors in the Sky Blues. He points to about £5 million invested in new players including defenders Scott Dann and Daniel Fox, outstanding goalkeeper Kieren Westwood, and striker Freddie Eastwood. Mr Ranson would not say whether the club had driven down its players’ wage bill, which had accounted for two thirds of the Sky Blues’ spending. He added: “The priority has to be strengthening the team, it’s no good owning a stadium if it’s empty.”

 

[Astute]

Ahem.



In other words Calista, the Higgs share at a reduced price deviating from formula was non-negotiable until this all kicked off. Does sound much like the Wasps deal in terms of longer lease and lower purchase price however. (Edit - worth noting a 'derisory' offer hardly suggests the council embraced the SISU deal for the club, either!) SISU's bid was less capital, but not incuding the stadium. This, then, allows me to move to the following...

As for Ranson, it was his decision to spunk cash on players rather than the ground.

Shapiro wanted CCFC debts paid off? So how much was that and from where?

And didn't SISU make out that they were going to give Higgs the 6m they wanted but then started their games?

Ranson wanted the Ricoh. Do you think we would be in the same situation if he had the final say in what happened? He didn't stay long because of what he could see that SISU were up to. Ranson wanted to build a side. SISU wanted to cash in whenever they could.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Ranson wanted the Ricoh.

The priority has to be strengthening the team, it’s no good owning a stadium if it’s empty.

 

[Nick]

Ahem.

In other words Calista, the Higgs share at a reduced price deviating from formula was non-negotiable until this all kicked off. Does sound much like the Wasps deal in terms of longer lease and lower purchase price however. (Edit - worth noting a 'derisory' offer hardly suggests the council embraced the SISU deal for the club, either!) SISU's bid was less capital, but not incuding the stadium. This, then, allows me to move to the following...

As for Ranson, it was his decision to spunk cash on players rather than the ground.

And that's why it seems like they weren't too keen on letting it go to the club, SISU or no SISU.

 

[covmark]

I wouldn't bother.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk