Missing an important detail MMM: The club sold its stake in ACL to the Higgs to meet other debts.
No there are some who are totally against rent, arguing that the 1.3 million is a fair an justified rentHere we go again ..........
Don't know of any fans that are not for a rent reduction. Most are unhappy in at least one way they are going about getting a reduction. I would be much happier if they were paying what they see as a fair rent. They are paying no rent at all. They have said about playing elsewhere. How many STH's would be happy with this? How many are happy with the uncertainty this brings to the club? How many are happy with the non payment at all?
There are many other reasons that fans are unhappy with the situation. This doesn't mean fans don't want a reduction. The uncertainty is the worse thing of all.
MMM...
Your first point is the one that sticks in my throat where SISU, and certain other posters are concerned. Astute said "Nobody wants to see high rent" That includes me! I do NOT however, want to see our football club, "Bite the hand that kept us alive" because we certainly wouldn't exist today without ACL. Fair play on both sides, and a hell of a lot less "Bully Boy tactics from SISU" wouldn't come amiss!
Why would a genuine supporter be against the club paying less rent? I don't get how that is possible?
Less rent/more favourable rent agreement means more money for the club to invest in other areas such as players and therefore hopefully greater success.
Pay some negotiated rent - YES. Pay no rent NO! Do you really believe that geting the stadium rent free will mean more money will be invested in the team?
Here we go again ..........
Don't know of any fans that are not for a rent reduction.
.
MMM...
Your first point is the one that sticks in my throat where SISU, and certain other posters are concerned. Astute said "Nobody wants to see high rent" That includes me! I do NOT however, want to see our football club, "Bite the hand that kept us alive" because we certainly wouldn't exist today without ACL. Fair play on both sides, and a hell of a lot less "Bully Boy tactics from SISU" wouldn't come amiss!
It can't. Financial Fair Play means we are limited to 65% (I recall) of turnover as being our wage cap. Spend any more than that and we're in embargo. Saving on rent reduces operating costs, but doesn't push up turnover. I wish people would understand this
MMM...I was really questioning the poster's naivety in believing that IF there was money available it would be invested in the team.
I asked this on another thread but I don't remember weather you answered itIt can't. Financial Fair Play means we are limited to 65% (I recall) of turnover as being our wage cap. Spend any more than that and we're in embargo. Saving on rent reduces operating costs, but doesn't push up turnover. I wish people would understand this
MMM...I was really questioning the poster's naivety in believing that IF there was money available it would be invested in the team.
I asked this on another thread but I don't remember weather you answered it
Say we were 20k p/w (1 million a year) under the maximum amount allowed under financial fair play, if the club started paying the 1.3 million rent again then that 20k p/w would be used on the rent rather than improving the squad
Just because our maximum in 65% doesn't mean the club have the means to actually fulfill the maximum surely
No, sorry - missed it. I was either asleep or 'over-refreshed'. Or both! In précis, no.
Turnover is sales revenue. The total a business can earn. For us it would be via ticket receipts, television money, cup runs, the club shop, etc. Every ounce of cash we take from each area of the business is sales revenue and that's a businesses' turnover. Literally, how much cash the business 'turns over'.
Normally a business accounts something like this: sales (turnover) minus direct cost of sales gives gross profit; thereafter indirect and other costs leaves net profit. Or loss!!
So, say a pub for example - why not? Total sales = turnover. Direct cost of sales such as beer and food gives 'gross' profit on trading. Minus overheads such as rent wages, telephone, electric, etc gives a 'net' position.
The FFP rules are based on 65% of turnover, or sales. A rent reduction could reduce our overheads. But it wouldn't increase our sales - or turnover.
The only caveat being that if CFCC received match-day income, this would increase turnover as it's something they don't get at the moment. But I understand this contract has been sold on by ACL in any case.
Does this help at all?!?
It doesn't help if we get promoted does it?
So you agree the football club is an essential component for the stadiums success then?
Sorry, I don't understand your post - it's been a long day...
The FPP rules in the championship I believe are totally different and are aimed at getting clubs to at least break even. Deviation in the first season is an loss of a maximum of £4 million. That was the proposal so rent payments become a very important factor.
To be frank, a wholly larger debate, dear chap. Yes, you're right it does. But I go also back to where I started this page. In 2011 as a Championship team we lost, circa. £6.7m on £10.3m turnover. Ouch! Even with a lower rent, that'll fall foul of the Championship FFP Panel. Hence my question regarding the 'bigger picture'. Without that, whatever rental is levied is irrelevant given the balance of the finances.
Fisher's whole rent debate ties his comparison to an 'average league one' rental. I think he needs to build a picture around that, and another for the effects of us going up.
Or are you saying ACL should agree to maintain the 'average league one rental' once we go up too; with the balance of the finances still in tatters?
There are plenty of posters on this thread who think fuck Acl as long as ccfc get whatever rent reduction they want.
@ sky blue john...
There are a lot that have no scruples, but would be the first to complain if it was happening to them
There are plenty of posters on this thread who think feck Acl as long as ccfc get whatever rent reduction they want.
@ sky blue john...
There are a lot that have no scruples, but would be the first to complain if it was happening to them
Depends on what you mean. ACL have had their snouts in the Sky Blue trough for 7 years. Time for some fairness from them.
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?