italiahorse
Well-Known Member
But instead of using all the shop income in the calculation we can only use the percentage we are given.
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.
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 see it being terrible?Oh you don't know what the deal is but you can't see it being terrible?
So they saved a few quid on not hiring any staff and not paying any rent on the shop.But instead of using all the shop income in the calculation we can only use the percentage we are given.
But instead of using all the shop income in the calculation we can only use the percentage we are given.
Oh you don't know what the deal is but you can't see it being terrible?
Well it not as good as keeping 100% is it?Oh you don't know what the deal is but you can see it being terrible?
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
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.
Depends on each clubs circumstances surely.If these deals were terrible why would so many clubs be entering into them?
If these deals were terrible why would so many clubs be entering into them?
Never said they had?Have they really taken on additional staff or just moved the ticketing operation from Lockhurst Lane to make it more accessible?
We would need to get 40% back to have the same FFP calculation value.
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.
Is our club shop the smallest in the football league ?
But I never said they had employed anymore.That would imply the saving is offset by employee costs, not the case if it just a change of location for an existing employee.
Off the top of my head Brentford, Crawley and Barnet are all smaller. Sure there's more.
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%.
Off the top of my head Brentford, Crawley and Barnet are all smaller. Sure there's more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
There is no pro sisu posters, those who appear pro sisu to you are those who are not letting the council off the hook.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
Ranson wanted the Ricoh.
Ray Ranson said:The priority has to be strengthening the team, it’s no good owning a stadium if it’s empty.
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.
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?