Anyone notice the build cost of £27M. mostly funded by the Council,pretty much what our council contributed .Does the Swansea rent pay down that expense thought the Stadium management company?Like our Council there has been no profit taken ,the only other difference in that Article is that opposition Councilors wish to Jack up the rent not controlling party of the Council.:thinking about:
Thanks for that. More proof of the greed of ACL and the Council.
I can see no evidence this arrangement even exists. Also the football club seem to have joint ownership of the management company.
£10million from Coventry Council.
I wonder where the money from Compass went to? ACL? Never seen that shown in figures anywhere.
£125 million for 10 years a hell of a lot of money, whether upfront or £12.5million per year.
Would make the "profit" that ACL alledgedly makes of around £1million into huge loss wouldn't it?
£10million from Coventry Council.
I wonder where the money from Compass went to? ACL? Never seen that shown in figures anywhere.
£125 million for 10 years a hell of a lot of money, whether upfront or £12.5million per year.
Would make the "profit" that ACL alledgedly makes of around £1million into huge loss wouldn't it?
And so what! What did Swansea pay in championship - a fraction of the £1.2 million we have had and would have continued to had unless the club went on rent strike.
Excellent analysis - further evidence that this council have treated the club shamefully.
Great you've seen the light.
As far as I've become aware LS ,OSB straightened the compass situation out ,as myself and others have held a misconception that Compass when signing the 10yr £125M. deal somehow contributed to ACL's bottom line ,when the reality was a share of the "Anticipated turnover of £12.5M. PA.
The Council exposure at the outset was around £30M. swiftly reduced by the £21M.Lease IIRC.
sisu didnt seem to have a problem paying £1.2m until april last year when relegation was looking certain
So the "£125million deal" really just a load of corporate bollocks and spin then.
http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co...5m-deal-at-coventry-city-fc-s-ricoh-arena.htm
sisu didnt seem to have a problem paying £1.2m until april last year when relegation was looking certain
Not strictly true. The previous regime tried to renegotiate in December 2005. If Swansea rent figure if true then our payment swamps it.. ACL really are shameless.
sisu didnt seem to have a problem paying £1.2m until april last year when relegation was looking certain
Torch, Coundon indicates in his OP thate Mcginity /Robinson et al were offered the percentage deal that Swansea operate ,so while they attempted to re-negotiate ,it was down to their own ineptitude ,much like Richardsons performance .
You could'nt make it up.
Whats worse is that the Current owners while paying the level of rent demanded ,chose to reduce their income by reducing ST prices ,then mortgaging against them ,incurring interest charges while reducing gate receipts .now that must have cost us Circa £1M. per season.:thinking about:
Where is the rental deal Swansea have. I can't see it anywhere and Coundon want say his source.
One Bbc article suggests they have paid next to nothing in the first 6 years it was built.
Again, peoples hatred of Sisu blinds them to the fact that we, and it is 'we' are paying too much in rent. It's as simple as that. Regardless of the reasons why, or how it came about it's too much. Saying "Sisu agreed to it" means nothing. I agreed to my phone contract, which I then felt was too much so wanted to change it. Just because I agreed to it originally doesn't change the fact it was probably too expensive to begin with.
And before someone pipes up with "Did you just stop paying" or something similar, no I didn't. And that's where I stop arguing for Sisu, because they went about this entirely wrong.
Again, peoples hatred of Sisu blinds them to the fact that we, and it is 'we' are paying too much in rent. It's as simple as that. Regardless of the reasons why, or how it came about it's too much. Saying "Sisu agreed to it" means nothing. I agreed to my phone contract, which I then felt was too much so wanted to change it. Just because I agreed to it originally doesn't change the fact it was probably too expensive to begin with.
And before someone pipes up with "Did you just stop paying" or something similar, no I didn't. And that's where I stop arguing for Sisu, because they went about this entirely wrong.
no club particularly needs to own their stadium so long as they are getting a good deal and access to revenue streams. we have been paying way over the odds and not getting access to any revenue streams!
one thing that doesn't get mentioned is what happens when ACLs lease runs out. at that point the Ricoh will no longer be a modern stadium and the council, as owners, may decide to knock it down and use the land for something else, what happens to the football club then?
im not saying this though. im simply saying sisu as far as im aware never complained about the amount of rent being paid. the rent is way too high and acl seem to have screwed ccfc with this agreement. but since sisu took charge until last april nobody including fans seemed to have a problem with the rent, the whole agreement but not the rent.
im not saying this though. im simply saying sisu as far as im aware never complained about the amount of rent being paid. the rent is way too high and acl seem to have screwed ccfc with this agreement. but since sisu took charge until last april nobody including fans seemed to have a problem with the rent, the whole agreement but not the rent.
no club particularly needs to own their stadium so long as they are getting a good deal and access to revenue streams. we have been paying way over the odds and not getting access to any revenue streams!
one thing that doesn't get mentioned is what happens when ACLs lease runs out. at that point the Ricoh will no longer be a modern stadium and the council, as owners, may decide to knock it down and use the land for something else, what happens to the football club then?
Again, peoples hatred of Sisu blinds them to the fact that we, and it is 'we' are paying too much in rent. It's as simple as that.
no club particularly needs to own their stadium so long as they are getting a good deal and access to revenue streams. we have been paying way over the odds and not getting access to any revenue streams!
one thing that doesn't get mentioned is what happens when ACLs lease runs out. at that point the Ricoh will no longer be a modern stadium and the council, as owners, may decide to knock it down and use the land for something else, what happens to the football club then?
whereas everything else we pay for is a bargain???
in 8 years at the Ricoh - we have probably
a) Paid £6m more than a fair rent
b) Lost out on maybe £2m + of other income streams - directly related to matchday
ie £1m a year
If each season we had invested an extra £1m on the pitch each season............
It's your tunnel vision. Your little bit of research has backfired as it has identified that the rent Coventry City FC were charged from 2005 to 2012 was clearly excessive.
I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.
Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.
The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:
Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem
Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.
Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?
I know its painful to try and get the point across at times! Even if fingers crossed we get rid of SISU and get new backers unless the issues surrounding income and expenditure are addressed we are going to just get back into the same mess. I notice JE has reiterated no 50% no deal so least he understands what is required to make CCFC work.the people who say the councils offer was reasonable dont understand
if you need £100 to survive and someone offers you £90...thats not enough no matter how much ground they have given, it helps noone.
But the rent is a fraction of our overall losses...Bell and Wood's wages are more of a drain.
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?