I'd love to just think about this season and promotion but it pisses me off (and others) when people piss on bonfires before anything has actually happened about being in the championship. Despite you and other supposed 'experts' pouring scorn over being in the championship, I like a lot of fans would just love the chance of being in the championship and then lets see what happens, rather than every time promotion is mentioned we seem to get people fucking moaning about how bad it'll be. After years of shit, just enjoy the thought a bit more.
at risk of sounding like a bully, stupot i must say from reading your posts i do not get feeling you have enjoyed this season i honestly dont
be honest with yourself, have you been buzzing for majority of season? i know i have, it shows in my posts. your post always seem to be about impending doom on and off the pitch. i am just strugging to understand how you are "loving" this season.
honest query
Doesn't very little income actually come from having 365 day incomes?
This is a thread about the ground share and if it would work in the Championship / Premier League isn't it?
Can anybody put a figure on it? Many people spout the mantra 'we need 365 day income', but do they have any idea what that amounts too, if they can't quantify the increase in income (not turnover) then they know nothing and are talking out of their posteriors. I challenge anyone who believes in this mantra to come up with a figure based on evidence.
I used to work at a Premier League club as Business Development Manager and if I'm honest, the revenue can be great (dependant on the facilities at the relevant ground) for the club but in my opinion, the margins on non-matchday events wouldn't leave a club with a dramatically increased pot of money compared to other incomes such as TV Money, Premier League split payments (or whatever they're called), stadium sponsorship etc.
Someone mentioned earlier that in the Championship that we'd need a further £500k of funding on top of what ever else we'd receive to make up something like a £6m budget. Non-matchday events would give you that but they certainly wouldn't make up the majority of a £6m budget.
General Question:
Do you think it would help for example if the club owned the ground and then it would cost save on other things? ie Office Rental, Store Rental and anything else that is currently away from the stadium but could then be brought back? Obviously not £6 millions worth.
Then things like Corporate, if we have to pay £x per game per box to be opened the profit margins would be better on things like that and more flexibility.
You gain on incomes and reduce certain costs whilst taking on other large costs eg interest charges, 365 day rates charge etc though by owning the ground
You gain on incomes and reduce certain costs whilst taking on other large costs eg interest charges, 365 day rates charge etc though by owning the ground
That reminds me, did ACL actually pay back the £400,000 to CCC for the overcharging of rates to the club?
Remember they were going to appeal but don't know if that happened or not?
Would have shown in the accounts at some point I'd have thought?
Can anybody put a figure on it? Many people spout the mantra 'we need 365 day income', but do they have any idea what that amounts too, if they can't quantify the increase in income (not turnover) then they know nothing and are talking out of their posteriors. I challenge anyone who believes in this mantra to come up with a figure based on evidence.
I think it was paid back.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-council-pays-six-figure-sum-7140178
Paid back to the club by CCC(but only three years of overcharging), but apparently ACL were then supposed to pay it back to CCC.
That reminds me, did ACL actually pay back the £400,000 to CCC for the overcharging of rates to the club?
Remember they were going to appeal but don't know if that happened or not?
Would have shown in the accounts at some point I'd have thought?
It was the council who overcharged the rates IIRC as they're the outfit that you pay rates to, not your landlord. And yes again IIRC the club were successful in their appeal and rightly so.
Personally I don't know any city fan that isn't hoping to get at least to the play offs this season or for better than that. Would love us to be promoted and not via the playoffs. But that isn't this discussion is it.
Mr Fletcher says to be in the Premiership you need to own your ground. Clearly you don't. You need access to as much income as possible, and even then most of the income (over 90% in Swansea's situation) is not actually related to ownership or not. Using Swansea as an example then I would guess less than 5% relates to the incomes we don't at present have any access to - yes that's around £5m but That still implies 95% of our income in the Premiership would be from sources we potentially have access to now
But we haven't got there have we. Still in L1 with a good chance of promotion to the Championship. That promotion brings, like it or not, financial gains but also financial problems which make the next step to Premiership very hard indeed. Like it or not available spend is even more important in the Championship - it is vital
Our situation is what it is. It restricts other incomes - but not most of the income. It clearly does not restrict the clubs ability to compete at the top end of L1 - although I would guess the budget is one of the lowest we have had in recent times but we are told it is one of the biggest in L1.Thanks to SBAndy for his "digging" it seems there is a significant increase in solidarity payments etc coming in. That appears to cover the wages gap I suggested, which I had guessed however that's just the wages what about funds for buying players? what about competing with clubs that have the parachute payments? what about competing with clubs who historically have bigger turnovers? What about the effect the new Premiership deal will have on the value & wages of the players we might hope to attract?
Is there potential for a better deal at the Ricoh, yes I would think so. However don't base it on what the cost bases were 4 years ago, things are very different now. But the first step is that both Wasps and CCFC have to commit to a long term mutually beneficial "partnership" of some kind. The key there is that Wasps have to want CCFC there long term and CCFC have to want to be there long term. Right now at least one side of that does not seem to exist. Right now Wasps will give/negotiate CCFC very little on a short term basis - be honest why would you. But perhaps if the owners say we want to stay but cant progress on the present basis, we want to be higher Championship and ultimately Premiership, long term you need us and would benefit, this is our business plan, both at the Ricoh we are all worth a whole lot more - then just maybe there might be room to negotiate a better deal. I am not saying that this will happen and if the owners assess that such an option is not in the best interests of the CLUB then so be it. But to say a better deal on incomes will never happen is the typical blinkered financial view that got both clubs in the financial messes in the first place. The old thinking doesn't work in reality, it masses debt upon debt and ends up as a disaster, we have to be more creative and I think this is where Anderson has suggested we should be in thought process
Will Seppala work with Wasps? Was she at this weeks SCG by the way?
There are things they could do to get some of the other incomes - they could put conferences, events, etc on using the site for example. Yes that benefits Wasps but it also primarily benefits CCFC. But they don't do it despite being always able to have done so. Thing is aside from the antipathy that in my opinion exists at the top of the ownership towards the site/Wasps/CCC, I get the impression of an amateur commercial side, but also the lack hard cash to do it or even the will
Look at just about any Championship team and they all keep adding debt season after season in their attempt to get to the promised land. Most of those teams will have wage costs well over £8m pa but also have the ability to buy players. The league rules allow losses to be made annually - up to £15m over three years. That has to be financed, bills have to be paid, losses covered by someone. Our owners have said stand on your own two feet, no more money, will that change if we get promoted? Can it change? Is there the passion to change and "invest" more? Does the club need more debt can it survive more debt?
Not pissing on anyone's chips in saying any of this. There are solutions that can help, if there were not we might as well give up now. Would rather go in in eyes at least partly open rather than with unfounded over blown expectations. This is a thread about owning the stadium and the finance it brings isn't it
Why do I worry about the finances of going up - because our finances are precarious and if we do and fail because of lack of funds, investment, turnover then we get relegated it is a big problem. We might of course really succeed who knows but I suspect there will be a debt risk to that
Yes I and others might be getting ahead of ourselves, we may be wrong and the club has it all sorted (very sceptical of that), but above all we should enjoy the success we are having- what will be will be
Looking forward to a win this weekend
PUSB's
Using Wasps as an example - they are claiming that they will end up with the greatest revenue streams of all rugby teams in UK (if not Europe) and we've seen what their attendances are like. So to generate all that revenue it must be coming from somewhere like the non-match day operations
I think he means that ACL would have had to pay it (the money CCFC was refunded) as they are the landlord.
I know it's hard to answer OSB, but would you agree that financially, the income gains/cost reduction from ownership, would outweigh the other costs associated with ownership? I know it will depend on many variables but I would assume it would.
I don't believe the difference is as substantial as some people like to imply, Wasps perhaps put themselves in a different position when they acquired the Arena since that includes a hotel, exhibition hall, casino, function rooms, shop & parking, the combination of those income generating assets may well add up something more impressive. It is clear the proposed new CCFC stadium would not have all those facilities built in, most stadia have only parking, function rooms and a bit of retail space in addition to the usual food & beverage facilities.
Thanks OSB, this is great analysis and far more detailed than what i was trying to say. I would add though that they changed the FFP rules and teams in the championship can now lose upto£39 million over 3 years.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29940463
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So unless you have a sugar Daddy or parachute payments you are doomed to mediocrity. All hail the god of Football finance!
What rent does the hotel and casino pay? General question to anybody out there
What rent does the hotel and casino pay? General question to anybody out there
It's not just the rent they pay though. The mere presence of those facilities make the arena itself more attractive and easier to promote.
The chances of what anything SISU have proposed taking business like the Springsteen, Rhiana concert and the MTV festival away from the Ricoh has got to be tiny to zero.
The hotel is owned by ACL/Wasps so I assume there would be no rent involved as they'd be paying themselves.
Yeah, it would be a lease like the casino wouldn't it?The hotel is run by the Hilton, you would assume they would be paying ACL a rental income then taking the profits form the rooms.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The hotel is run by the Hilton, you would assume they would be paying ACL a rental income then taking the profits form the rooms.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
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?