Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Where does this figure of £60m come from? Total garbage.
There you go again looking to past mistakes ... oh, that's what you do successfully for a living. Think you need a different accountant if you think that is all my business is about.
I think we should stop using the phrase 'now' when we are talking about their cost reduction efforts. The recent board has addressed the rent issue from day one ... since almost a year ago. convenient and you could look at it that way...... you could also look at it from the point of view that the owners SISU have always had over 80% of the shares and therefore total control from day 1 in 2008 ...... agreed the general objectives and sanctioned the employment of the members of every board since January 2008
We should also see the sisu ownership as three different venues -
Rel. 1.0 was Ranson/Hoffman/Elliot, Rel 2.0 was Dulieu/Igwe and now Rel. 3.0 is Fischer/Waggot.
They have all been cutting costs but with different intensity and focus. But we need to understand the three different boards have had different objectives. Ransons objective was to gain promotion to PL. KD was supposed to clean up the mess RR left. TF has taken over the task of getting the club to breakeven. Fair comments but so is the view that they were buying in to a distressed company (something SISU has as a core business) and it is basics to stabilise costs when doing that from day 1, and to make sure investment is on a targetted sure basis. That this was not addressed means the club is saddled with loss and debt plus a rent still at £1.28m legally. Yes TF is getting to grips with it apparently but the club is still on the edge of a big hole. That the issue is addressed as i said i welcome better late than never and it provides a firmer basis for the future
Finally we should recognise that the world today is completely different from five years ago. Back then money was in excess and the mentality was all about spending. Today money are hard to find and the mentality is all about saving. money was easier in 2008 but hardly in excess, especially for distressed businesses like football clubs with no assets. of course things change would never argue against that a good business is proactive not reactive which do you think we are?
What was the right thing to do yesterday, may be wrong today ... and that is the pitfall of strategic management. wouldnt disagree that you have to be flexible to changing circumstances, basic business technique in my book as is getting the planning right, proper cost control and living within the means of the business or its investors.
and do not take what i put down as being risk averse....... every business has to take risks to succeed ....... the trick is to take the right ones at the right times
This is why I detest the blame game. It is counter productive and poisonous in all situations.
I was thinking of The Numbskulls. Or were they in Topper?
It was Beezer, whatever happened to all thee comics? Whizzer and Chips, The Dandy, Beeno, Tiger, Battle, Action etc?
Think only 2000AD still going really.
Splundig vur Thrigg!
It was Beezer, whatever happened to all the comics? Whizzer and Chips, The Dandy, Beeno, Tiger, Battle, Action etc?
Think only 2000AD still going really.
Splundig vur Thrigg!
I used to get TV21 and then (oddly) one called Valiant! Oh, and Tammy obviously.
My sister used to get Misty, which was really quite good, supernatural type stories, often quite unsettling.
Generally featuring horses though!
Trouble is having developed the losses and debt, the club has to live with the consequences of that going forward and for a number of (many?)years. It will affect its business ability, its planning, objectives and partnerships - in that sense the past is very relevant. Does it require a different approach than in 2008 yes but it will have to take into account what has gone on and where we are now. It isnt about blame at all it is realising the causes of the situation, taking responsibility and dealing with them in a manner that means it wont happen again thereby enabling a financially sound business that is an investment prospect
The club get no money from concerts! That's the point. Unless of course "honest" Ray has told you otherwise? Perhaps you've been on the phone to him?
If SISU owned the £10m share of the Ricoh(As you eloquently say RR states)....Wait a minute...Nobody from SISU has ever mentioned £10m for a share before have they? unless you give £10m here or there...I digress.
Apart from profitting from food and drink at the games, my other statement rings true, profits from all of the aforementioned "Gigs" would also be theirs wouldn't it! Along with all the "Corporate boxes""Corporate do's"etc,etc.
I'm no accountant, but.....Owning means no rent as well!
The club get no money from concerts! That's the point. Unless of course "honest" Ray has told you otherwise? Perhaps you've been on the phone to him?
If SISU owned the £10m share of the Ricoh(As you eloquently say RR states)....Wait a minute...Nobody from SISU has ever mentioned £10m for a share before have they? unless you give £10m here or there...I digress.
Apart from profitting from food and drink at the games, my other statement rings true, profits from all of the aforementioned "Gigs" would also be theirs wouldn't it! Along with all the "Corporate boxes""Corporate do's"etc,etc.
I'm no accountant, but.....Owning means no rent as well!
Had sisu - or anybody else - predicted the finacial crisis five years ago, the club wouldn't exist today.
And to be honest, if this board is not successful in getting to break-even, the club probably won't exist for long. The financial crisis is commonly regarded as having its roots in the credit crunch of 2007, (if the likes of Warren Buffet believe thats when it started and were warning about the impact at that time then thats good enough for me) in which case the effects and warning signs were there already in January 2008 in terms of access to finance and liquidity. Am not knocking SISU for taking a risk but to hide behind the financial crisis is to over simplify it. So we blame the financial crisis do we ? plenty of people have profited from it then and now and very often it is hedge funds that do in such times - we are talking professional investors here. Certainly if owners do not continue to fund or we cant sell enough players or we cant operate to break even or some combination of all these then yes the club has great problems
I see the replacement of two boards as 'taking responsibility'. We should acknowledge that. so we can look back at because it is a plus but not on other things ? interesting
But for ccfc to ever - or within a foreseeable future - become a sound investment prsospect will require a lot of re-active doings proactive is better, we know where we are financially (or should) and therefore we should be able to deal with potential downsides before they happen not react to them after they have happened - you know planning and that kind of thing ?. One is to get the rent down yes ... or better ... merge ACL into ccfc in my opinion very unlikely in the forseeable future.
Godiva.
Formula (Pretty accurate at £10m) SISU said they the had money to buy the shares RR states estimated £10m for a share.
Yet you split hairs on this.
Every man and his dog knows give or take a couple of grand that the share is £10m. If it was £9.9m you'd STILL split hairs.
summerisle....He's there...just cba to answer you!:facepalm:
guess we have to agree to differ on some things Godiva
No one knows anything of the sort.
I thought the Higgs share was worth £6 million.
Godiva.
Formula (Pretty accurate at £10m) SISU said they the had money to buy the shares RR states estimated £10m for a share.
Yet you split hairs on this.
Every man and his dog knows give or take a couple of grand that the share is £10m. If it was £9.9m you'd STILL split hairs.
Why can't you just acknowledge that there are absolutely no evidence that sisu was ever prepared to pay £10m for the shares?
All they have stated is that they would like to buy them, but they never said at what price!
Ray said so. That's enough for Sky Blue Kid. You do realise he will mention you and £10 million in every post don't you. Welcome to the world of the "estimated" fact and battery boy. Welcome to the club.
Ray said so. That's enough for Sky Blue Kid. You do realise he will mention you and £10 million in every post don't you. Welcome to the world of the "estimated" fact and battery boy. Welcome to the club.
Coventry Telegraph sports desk has stopped accepting my calls.
Wasn't it Look-In that had comic strips based on popular TV shows of the time?
Think i remember a Tomorrow People one.
There's another memory, loved that when i was a kid.
And Higgs paid <£2m for the shares (I think).
And since then land and property prices have dropped a lot.
Whether it is a more valuable business is open to debate.
The £2m is the amount shown in the football investors ltd accounts for the value of their shares which was used to purchase the ACL shares don. The charity owns football investors ltd. The charity paid CCFC £6.5m for the rights to those shares. The shares issued in ACL to the charity is £1.75m same as for the Council who invest via Coventry North Limited.
The value of the land and property has nothing at all to do with the value of ACL or the shares. The value of the 49 year 364 day lease is what ACL owns.
The value of ACL is not a value on open market like say buying shares on the stock market or even selling an private engineering company. There is a very limited number of potential buyers one of which may be CCFC - that could drive the price down if simply selling as a football stadium but it isnt just that is it. That means potential suitors if to be sold could also be the large entertainment conglomerates like AEG in which case there would be no or little discount for restricted buyers.
However there have to be willing sellers in the first place and I would suspect that with what has gone on there is little appetite amongst the Council and Charity to sell right now and even less appetite to sell to any business involving SISU. So if anyone wants to get there hands on the arena they are going to have to put up a very good price before the council (the freehold) or ACL/Council/Charity (the leasehold) will even look at it. (or drive ACL in to administration and do it that way)
Yes prices are depressed generally for property but for any real valuation then there needs to be a willing seller and a realistically capable buyer - dont see much evidence of either. Certainly wont get it for £2m £4m etc !
as to whether the ACL business is valuable or viable - where is the evidence it isnt ?
If ACL can be driven into administration it is not a viable business.
Aw, come on. If it's prime tenant doesn't pay rent for a year, then goes and starts talking about it's viability in the national press, causing nervousness with their bankers - damn well knowing the effect of the cash-flow problems not paying rent for a year would cause; that's not the sort of pressure a 'viable business' would normally have to endure, eh?
The £2m is the amount shown in the football investors ltd accounts for the value of their shares which was used to purchase the ACL shares don. The charity owns football investors ltd. The charity paid CCFC £6.5m for the rights to those shares. The shares issued in ACL to the charity is £1.75m same as for the Council who invest via Coventry North Limited.
The value of the land and property has nothing at all to do with the value of ACL or the shares. The value of the 49 year 364 day lease is what ACL owns.
The value of ACL is not a value on open market like say buying shares on the stock market or even selling an private engineering company. There is a very limited number of potential buyers one of which may be CCFC - that could drive the price down if simply selling as a football stadium but it isnt just that is it. That means potential suitors if to be sold could also be the large entertainment conglomerates like AEG in which case there would be no or little discount for restricted buyers.
However there have to be willing sellers in the first place and I would suspect that with what has gone on there is little appetite amongst the Council and Charity to sell right now and even less appetite to sell to any business involving SISU. So if anyone wants to get there hands on the arena they are going to have to put up a very good price before the council (the freehold) or ACL/Council/Charity (the leasehold) will even look at it. (or drive ACL in to administration and do it that way)
Yes prices are depressed generally for property but for any real valuation then there needs to be a willing seller and a realistically capable buyer - dont see much evidence of either. Certainly wont get it for £2m £4m etc !
as to whether the ACL business is valuable or viable - where is the evidence it isnt ?
But is ACL a 'normal business'?
Never mind that - in any business you will know the threats as well as the potentials. The biggest threat to ACL was always losing their main tenant.
.
However, I firstly believe it could be 'viable' if it turned it's back on the club
Name 1 single venue that is similar to the Ricoh without a permanent tenant that is viable.
Name 1 single venue that is similar to the Ricoh without a permenant tenant that is viable.
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?