Question for PWKH (4 Viewers)

The fact they haven't publishly rubbished the claim says enough.

Many threads on here have already suggested it is about right.

The fact they haven't publicly rubbished the claim says that they didn't attend the same charm school as TF

Grendel said:

The fact they haven't publishly rubbished the claim says enough.

Many threads on here have already suggested it is about right.

Click to expand...

Sorry Grendel but I 'm not sure that is correct. There are individuals that have CLAIMED that the figures are correct and detailed three or four well known cases as proof. However even if you take those cases their average works out at well above the £150k quoted. As far as I'm aware no-one has produced detailed a breakdown of even colse to 50% of League 1 clubs rent or mortgage payments. I have been asking the same basic question as the OP for sometime but without a response that is any where near coherent, perhaps PWKH can help and through some light on the matter or perhaps it's just not possible/

The average cost for L1 clubs is not relevant - you pay rent according to the quality of the accommodation.

Yet as said before by the honerable Mr fisher he would be willing to pay double the average championship rent.

Leeds 1.8 million

Yet some on here say that was probably included in the average of the Championship

Yet Bates only revealed this figure the other day

mrtrench said:

The average cost for L1 clubs is not relevant - you pay rent according to the quality of the accommodation.

Click to expand...

Not strictly true: You pitch your rent at the level that any potential tenant can afford, otherwise it goes unrented. If it is of a better quality then it is more likely to find a tenant than others in the same price range.

Not got involved in these rent debates too much, but what is the legal position for SISU. Negotiating a new deal is one thing and legal but renaging on a previous agreement with what is a subsidery of the local council and therefore possibly an element of tax payer money involved maybe a different argument altogether when it comes to money/rent owed.

mrtrench said:

The average cost for L1 clubs is not relevant - you pay rent according to the quality of the accommodation.

Click to expand...

Which is about championship quality tbh.

rupert_bear said:

Not got involved in these rent debates too much, but what is the legal position for SISU. Negotiating a new deal is one thing and legal but renaging on a previous agreement with what is a subsidery of the local council and therefore possibly an element of tax payer money involved maybe a different argument altogether when it comes to money/rent owed.

Click to expand...

They are a private company. This had nothing to do with the taxpayer.

Okay. Am I just a thick Paddy or what. Who the fook is PWKH? Can we use names sometimes? We're not all familiar with who is who. :facepalm:

Peter W Knatchbull Hugeson HH

Houchens Head said:

Okay. Am I just a thick Paddy or what. Who the fook is PWKH? Can we use names sometimes? We're not all familiar with who is who. :facepalm:

Click to expand...

He is Peter somebody or other who I believe works for the Higgs Trust. He is a very well spoken chap who puts the Higgs side of the discussion on CWR. He seems a nice guy.

Grendel said:

The fact they haven't publishly rubbished the claim says enough.

Many threads on here have already suggested it is about right.

Click to expand...

ACL don't need to engage in this discussion. "League 1 average rent" is Fisher's thing. It has nothing to do with the incomings and outgoings ACL face. ACL should have an idea how much they need from CCFC to make the club's continued residence at the Ricoh worth its while. If it's £400,000 a year, then Fisher is whistling in the wind if he thinks ACL will go lower. If it's £1, ACL will probably accept a lower deal at some point.

Thanks Guys. At least I know now who we're on about!

Sky Blues said:

ACL don't need to engage in this discussion. "League 1 average rent" is Fisher's thing. It has nothing to do with the incomings and outgoings ACL face. ACL should have an idea how much they need from CCFC to make the club's continued residence at the Ricoh worth its while. If it's £400,000 a year, then Fisher is whistling in the wind if he thinks ACL will go lower. If it's £1, ACL will probably accept a lower deal at some point.

Click to expand...

OSB is of course correct. This will go on and on. Sisu want to bring ACL down and the obvious plan is to ultimately buy the Yorkshire Bank Loan. Time will tell. This has nothing ultimately to do with ACL and want they want. It is what SISU want and how far they are prepared to push it.

Grendel said:

OSB is of course correct. This will go on and on. Sisu want to bring ACL down and the obvious plan is to ultimately buy the Yorkshire Bank Loan. Time will tell. This has nothing ultimately to do with ACL and want they want. It is what SISU want and how far they are prepared to push it.

Click to expand...

At last you admit it is not about saving CCFC from an over priced rent

cloughie said:

At last you admit it is not about saving CCFC from an over priced rent

Click to expand...

maybe a few of your like minded posters may draw the same conclusion eventually

cloughie said:

At last you admit it is not about saving CCFC from an over priced rent

Click to expand...

No it isn't but the business model as it stands is unworkable. From the outset with a break even figure of 22,000 paying adults it was a disaster waiting to happen.

For the long term the rental agreement has to be ripped up. If this is achieved whatever the motivation it will bring some hope for the future.

We will not survive of the current arrangement is allowed to continue.

No one is stupid. Sisu are primarily there to look after their investors. ACl are there for shareholders and profit. Something has to give.

Grendel said:

No it isn't but the business model as it stands is unworkable. From the outset with a break even figure of 22,000 paying adults it was a disaster waiting to happen.

For the long term the rental agreement has to be ripped up. If this is achieved whatever the motivation it will bring some hope for the future.

We will not survive of the current arrangement is allowed to continue.

No one is stupid. Sisu are primarily there to look after their investors. ACl are there for shareholders and profit. Something has to give.

Click to expand...

But you keep arguing the rent is to high( yes its is ) but you continue to go over old ground about 22,000 / £1.2 million when you acknowledge that even with no rent it makes little difference to the loss incurred by CCFC .
And the truth is it has nothing to do with the rent it is about sisu

Sisu will gladly dispense of CCFC if they get their grubby hands on the arena and if it suits their purpose

Now you accept OSB's version, why do you think the city of coventry taxpayers and a charity should gift a hedge fund everything that belongs to the City of Coventry ie

The Arena and then let them sell it of at profit whilst CCFC profit not

Don't. The landlord pitches the rent at a sustainable and affordable level.

mrtrench said:

The average cost for L1 clubs is not relevant - you pay rent according to the quality of the accommodation.

Click to expand...

I love all the "it's just like a house" analogies. Brilliant.

dongonzalos said:

They pitch it at what it is worth, if they pitch it right. A tennant agrees with them and signs a legally binding contract. The landlord is then not responsible for the shit performance at work of his remnant meaning he suffers a loss in income and now struggles to be able to pay his rent.
Despite at the same time as saying he is struggling he asks the landlord if he wants to sell half the house.

Click to expand...

torchomatic said:

I love all the "it's just like a house" analogies. Brilliant.

Click to expand...

I know. The analogy is pathetic and irrelevant.

cloughie said:

Yet as said before by the honerable Mr fisher he would be willing to pay double the average championship rent.

Leeds 1.8 million

Yet some on here say that was probably included in the average of the Championship

Yet Bates only revealed this figure the other day

Click to expand...

You do know what the word average means don't you?

shmmeee said:

You do know what the word average means don't you?

Click to expand...

Quite. Hull pay £5,000. Leeds sold their ground and received an undisclosed but large figure for the sale and no one knows any details of the arrangement other than what bates says.

Just a few thoughts ....

You could argue that commercially football stadium are a scarce commodity and any rent is deserving of a premium

You might take into account the affordability for a tenant but the first and driving affordability to consider is your own

You might decide that in the best interests of the community you serve that you can decide to discount the rent to a particular tenant on the basis that you think you can work in partnership with that tenant to the greater benefit of the community. In which case the rent set has nothing at all to do with a commercial value or what others pay. It is an assessment of worth to both parties. It places a notional value on what the tenant brings to the community but what the tenant brings has to be seen to be delivered. It also assumes a flourishing partnership that both gain from equally

You can not as a tenant say how great the facilities are then decide they are average third tier just when it suits. Quality costs and it costs more than average whether its is chocolate, clothing, cars or property. Nor can you preach quality in everything else and for reasons of rent decide the venue is over priced at anything over £170k L1 average - it is not logical the stadium, the set up, the club, the earning potential is not L1 average (not about rent though is it - it is about setting an unreasonable demand that you know wont be met to give the illusion of good faith)

Rent is not a function of a tenants performance in the simple sense. It can be tied to attendance or footfall but to do so the landlord has to be confident that the footfall is achievable, that the tenant controls other costs in order to reduce further risk to the tenancy, and in a long term lease the tenant has a long term plan. The tenant has to prove it. If not done on that basis first and foremost it is up to the tenant to arrange its finances to meet rent costs, if it can prove having addressed all costs that it cannot the landlord can agree to step in and "help" even re negotiate on the rent.

We assume or perhaps imply when it suits that football is different, that somehow business logic doesnt apply. Why? SISU clearly see it as a commercial investment yet try to argue that normal commerciality in very specific areas does not apply - want us all to buy into it. This is business, there is no sugar daddy, unless it is treated as a business it wont survive. In that sense I have no problem with driving costs including rent down to benefit CCFC. The fact that we are in the mess we are is because of decades of business people leaving business principles at the door including SISU. In the last 15 years we have accumulated or written off something like £75m in losses and rent is our biggest problem - really ???!!!

Non payment of rent might be a tactic to get the landlords attention but that in the real world means immediate negotiation, and a willingness on both sides to be honest and open with each other. Above all if it is to work there has to be a feeling of partnership and mutual gain (of course this aint about the rent)

Break even is the function of the decisions made by a business management. Rent costs only form part of the calculation and to some degree fixed and out of control of a business. Other costs are agreed to by current choice or by historical accumulation of choices, all of which are the responsibility of the business owners. If breakeven is 22000 (and i am not sure at the moment it is) then that is a product of the choices made by SISU and TF - from ticket prices, to other income streams, to the costs, to the interest charges, then the main influence is themselves. SISU choose the budget, set the break even, make the decisions that affect CCFC.

Is the rent too high at £1.2m probably in terms of the club in its present self inflicted level of performance but if set commercially on the basis of property value probably not. The fact is the landlords are prepared to step outside normal commerce to support something privately owned that is valued by the people - not a normal commercial basis other than in sport etc. But it has to be a partnership - which the Club have repeatedly worked against. It has to be on the basis of openness for both parties and a consistency of plan or measures taken. You can not expect a landlord to be sympathetic when it is clear that other costs are not well controlled or even added to - you are likely to get a response of "why should we if you wont take your own business seriously"

But as we all know this whole situation has nothing to do with rent at all

just thoughts not saying all of this is the right way to go or think about it ....... although i think a reasonable person would think a big chunk of it is .... just my opinion

If it was about the rent Sisu would be in discussion with ACL and Seppala would tell Fisher to get on with it and to stop his PR offensive. As it is Seppala's tactics are just the same: everything to get her hands on the stadium, 100%, nothing less. It is her only way out.

4 days to go, PWKH, whats the odds on us getting some good news ?

oldskyblue58 said:

Just a few thoughts ....

Rent is not a function of a tenants performance in the simple sense. It can be tied to attendance or footfall but to do so the landlord has to be confident that the footfall is achievable, that the tenant controls other costs in order to reduce further risk to the tenancy, and in a long term lease the tenant has a long term plan. The tenant has to prove it. If not done on that basis first and foremost it is up to the tenant to arrange its finances to meet rent costs, if it can prove having addressed all costs that it cannot the landlord can agree to step in and "help" even re negotiate on the rent.

Click to expand...

Actually many shopping centers work like that. The shop owners pay a rent as a percentage of their turn over.

Anyway, rent is no different from other commodities - the price is dictated by supply and demand. The facilities are only a part of the package and if not needed not really relevant - like 20.000 excess seats.

If ACL can find another tenant (or more) who will pay more than ccfc, then they should be open and honest about it (phrase stolen from your post) and put that in front of the club. If the club still refuses to match that, they should be evicted and the new tenants signed up.