Revenues - how much are they worth? (12 Viewers)

chiefdave · Aug 8, 2014

Grendel said:
Dave thinks it's better with no club so they can sell more of their products to people attending events their. Apparently Arsenal are closing down and a runway is being constructed on the pitch -- target audience you see.

I didn't actually say that did I? You started off talking about the value of F&B revenues over the next 3 years. You then started on about stadium sponsorship which really has no impact on the club in a short term deal. The question I posed is that you can't know that Ricoh won't see a benefit in a different type of custom at the complex if a similar level of attendance is maintained. You can't possibly know that unless you are stating that the only type of advertising any company does is football related.

Equally you can't possibly state that if we are back on a permanent deal Ricoh will renew, or are you saying that if we return you guarantee Ricoh will renew their sponsorship at the same level of the previous deal? If Ricoh don't renew I doubt we will be told why, it could be us not playing there, it could be than annual attendance has dropped off, it could be they thought we'd be in the prem and we're in L1, could be they only ever intended to sponsor the initial period. It only suits your arguement if you conveniently ignore all other possibilities.

ccfcway · Aug 8, 2014

Grendel said:
Dave thinks it's better with no club so they can sell more of their products to people attending events their. Apparently Arsenal are closing down and a runway is being constructed on the pitch -- target audience you see.

arsenal have built their own stadium and are benefitting from the revenues. as we will be in 2 years (or 4 years at the most), why argue ?

shmmeee · Aug 8, 2014

Arsenal earn a damn sight more than us and had to be uncompetitive for years to pay for the stadium.

If we do that we drop to L2 :/

ccfcway · Aug 8, 2014

shmmeee said:
Arsenal earn a damn sight more than us and had to be uncompetitive for years to pay for the stadium.

If we do that we drop to L2 :/

tbf, we have been uncompetitive for years to pay for our "stadium". As grendal will agree, its all coming good in 2-4 years, when the new stadium is built

Noggin · Aug 8, 2014

Grendel said:
Dave thinks it's better with no club so they can sell more of their products to people attending events their. Apparently Arsenal are closing down and a runway is being constructed on the pitch -- target audience you see.

Arsenal have the most expensive season tickets in the country, a waiting list for season tickets big enough to fill the ricoh and some amazing (and amazingly priced) hospitality tickets. The season ticket where I sat for the Arsenal game cost £25000 a season + £25000 extra your first season there.

skybluetony176 · Aug 8, 2014

shmmeee said:
Arsenal earn a damn sight more than us and had to be uncompetitive for years to pay for the stadium.

If we do that we drop to L2 :/

That's why SISU stadium looks like a league 2 stadium in the drawing, err sorry I mean plans. They're planning ahead, that's professionalism for you

shmmeee · Aug 8, 2014

If the club wants more revenue, surely step one is base yourself in the local community then advertise and network your ass off to build up a loyal customer base?

How many community coaches could they have trained, or buses for elderly fans, or free kids tickets could they have paid for with the money spunked on Sixfields?

James Smith · Aug 8, 2014

Grendel said:
This is actually absurd. Your comment regarding weddings and hospitality would make a conclusion that owners of a football stadium would be better suited to booting the clubs out and running weddings and conferences. Have you been to a conference at the Ricoh? I have and its an average experience. The hotel confuses me -- I thought ACL did not own it - I thought it was De Vere. 19 rooms available one night this week when I looked.

Your premise suggests;

Build a football ground

Use it for weddings -- it makes more money

Sorry - your logic is absurd. If it is not absurd many football clubs would be homeless.

If this is the case why lease it at all to non league under 21's and womens football teams.

I fear for Swansea -- I suspect they will be homeless next season as some people will want to get married at the ground.

Idiotic.

So you don't have any figures then? I'm not saying that they're making more without us you're reading something that isn't there. As I said in an earlier post I don't know how much they're making as I haven't seen their accounts - have you?

You have mentioned on a few occasions other clubs who you say have better deals than we do. As far as I know those clubs are full or part owners of the stadium management companies, something we once were. We sold the share and should have bought back asap but you have told me that you think this would be pointless. Well we are where we are because the pre Sisu board didn't have the money to buy it back and Sisu desite having the money pursued a different strategy, one I disagree with.

You said that ACL is a private company and I agree they are, as are Otium and Sky Blue Sports and Leisure. Neither company or group of companies can force the other to do anything or hand over anything as we have seen in and out of court. Yes we all have a longstanding attachment to the club which is now trading as OEG, and this for us transcends the business side of things. However as a result of there being two separate companies, we don't have an automatic right to the Pie Money. Sisu who will hopefully be in a better position to know how long they think they will need for the new stadium should also know what value they place on the Pie Money for that length of time. They should then make an offer based on this.

As I said on another thread if returning to the Ricoh means that ACL have to put previous offers on the table or Joy has to get her cheque book out to secure this, then so be it.

What we need is trust between the two companies to be able to move forwards and that isn't happening at the moment.

SkyBlueWomble · Aug 8, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Can you name me another one that sold their rights to match day revenues? The club doesn't have them because the club sold them. To complain about their absence thereafter is farcical to the point of being amusing

The company that sold the match day rights to ACL no longer exists. ACL no longer owns the rights to the club's match day revenues because it initiated administration proceedings against the club and then rejected a CVA agreement by a court appointed administrator. If ACL wants the club's match day revenues it can buy them again for a fair value. For ACL to complain about this really would be amusing... just as it would be for SISU to complain about no longer having the option to buy 50% of ACL.

All is back on the table and any reference to a previous bad deal is pointless.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

SkyBlueWomble said:
The company that sold the match day rights to ACL no longer exists.

Let's begin with the start on this one. What relevance does that have? Once the buying party has the rights it's paid for, what happens to the selling party thereafter is irrelevant. Or can you persuade me differently?

SkyBlueWomble · Aug 8, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Let's begin with the start on this one. What relevance does that have? Once the buying party has the rights it's paid for, what happens to the selling party thereafter is irrelevant. Or can you persuade me differently?

ACL owned the rights to the match day revenues of CCFC Ltd. CCFC Ltd no longer exists. ACL rights in CCFC Ltd's match day revenues are now worthless.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

SkyBlueWomble said:
ACL owned the rights to the match day revenues of CCFC Ltd. CCFC Ltd no longer exists. ACL rights in CCFC Ltd's match day revenues are now worthless.

Are you trying to tell me that ACL would have a contract that only cited the owning/holding company as the entity that owned/controlled the football club at the time the contract was signed? I'm sorry, that would be amateurish of the legal team beyond belief. And that it wouldn't accommodate change of ownership of the club? Sorry - just don't believe that one.

If you have proof though, why; slap it up so I can have a look....

Hobo · Aug 8, 2014

SkyBlueWomble said:
The company that sold the match day rights to ACL no longer exists. ACL no longer owns the rights to the club's match day revenues because it initiated administration proceedings against the club and then rejected a CVA agreement by a court appointed administrator. If ACL wants the club's match day revenues it can buy them again for a fair value. For ACL to complain about this really would be amusing... just as it would be for SISU to complain about no longer having the option to buy 50% of ACL.
All is back on the table and any reference to a previous bad deal is pointless.[/QUOTE

Unfortunately SISU moved out. It is SISU who have to renegotiate everything.

Ian1779 · Aug 8, 2014

Perhaps SISU should just set up outlets within the concourse and sell better (and cheaper) food and beer.

Problem solved.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Perhaps SISU should just set up outlets within the concourse and sell better (and cheaper) food and beer.

Problem solved.

For the first four seasons, we'd only have an artist's impression of what the kiosk and pies would look like. They'd lose their customer base, then demand the revenues from the other pie-seller, until they'd built an out-of-town kiosk. Then sue the other outlet for breeching EU law on kidney content in their steak-and-kidney pie, lose twice, then try and call a pastry truce. Can't see it dear chap

SkyBlueWomble · Aug 8, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Are you trying to tell me that ACL would have a contract that only cited the owning/holding company as the entity that owned/controlled the football club at the time the contract was signed? I'm sorry, that would be amateurish of the legal team beyond belief. And that it wouldn't accommodate change of ownership of the club? Sorry - just don't believe that one.

If you have proof though, why; slap it up so I can have a look....

If there were more parties (i.e. all CCFC entities) to the contract, why didn't ACL take legal action against all the parties on the contract? My view is that ACL tried to mitigate their exposure to a (pretty economically non-viable tenant) with the GR/MM (then director) guarantees. If you think the contract was with all CCFC entities in existence at the time of the contract why don't you post it because the actions of the parties in the past couple of years suggest that it is only ACL and CCFC Ltd.

Ian1779 · Aug 8, 2014

You're probably right... Anyway all the ACL lovers would go to the original food outlets. They'd hate for the poor loves to be out of pocket.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

SkyBlueWomble said:
If there were more parties (i.e. all CCFC entities) to the contract, why didn't ACL take legal action against all the parties on the contract? My view is that ACL tried to mitigate their exposure to a (pretty economically non-viable tenant) with the GR/MM (then director) guarantees. If you think the contract was with all CCFC entities in existence at the time of the contract why don't you post it because the actions of the parties in the past couple of years suggest that it is only ACL and CCFC Ltd.

I don't have the contract. Do you? What I am saying is that it is fanciful to suggest that only the club's current owners would be contracted in a agreement of this duration. Any contract worth it's salt would name the football club (not it's owners), and probably any game of football, or sporting event at the venue, and not the controlling party at the time of signing. The current owners would be the signatory, but the contract would not be limited to their ownership. Honestly, to think or suggest so it preposterous. The contract will be, effectively, a monopoly at the venue. Irrespective of ownership of the club at any given moment in time

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

Ian1779 said:
You're probably right... Anyway all the ACL lovers would go to the original food outlets. They'd hate for the poor loves to be out of pocket.

I would suggest hungry people go to the food outlets; not 'ACL lovers'. I don't think anyone would gorge themselves in support of ACL, would they?!? Is this like a reverse hunger strike?

SkyBlueWomble · Aug 8, 2014

Hobo said:
SkyBlueWomble said:

The company that sold the match day rights to ACL no longer exists. ACL no longer owns the rights to the club's match day revenues because it initiated administration proceedings against the club and then rejected a CVA agreement by a court appointed administrator. If ACL wants the club's match day revenues it can buy them again for a fair value. For ACL to complain about this really would be amusing... just as it would be for SISU to complain about no longer having the option to buy 50% of ACL.
All is back on the table and any reference to a previous bad deal is pointless.[/QUOTE

Unfortunately SISU moved out. It is SISU who have to renegotiate everything.

Click to expand...

It's up to ACL and SISU to negotiate a deal that's better for both parties than they have at the moment. Which lets face it, shouldn't be hard for both parties.

Ian1779 · Aug 8, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I don't have the contract. Do you? What I am saying is that it is fanciful to suggest that only the club's current owners would be contracted in a agreement of this duration. Any contract worth it's salt would name the football club (not it's owners), and probably any game of football, or sporting event at the venue, and not the controlling party at the time of signing. The current owners would be the signatory, but the contract would not be limited to their ownership. Honestly, to think or suggest so it preposterous. The contract will be, effectively, a monopoly at the venue. Irrespective of ownership of the club at any given moment in time

On a previous point - If a company has to put in place guarantors in respect to a rental deal and other arrangements it just goes to show how shit for the club the deal was in the first place.

Ian1779 · Aug 8, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I would suggest hungry people go to the food outlets; not 'ACL lovers'. I don't think anyone would gorge themselves in support of ACL, would they?!? Is this like a reverse hunger strike?

Plenty of people are far more concerned about the well being of ACL than CCFC.

SkyBlueWomble · Aug 8, 2014

A football club isn't a contracting entity because a club isn't a legal person - the club's owner is. You cannot bind future owners or shareholders - you could restrict current owners from selling but that's another matter. It doesn't really matter whether you think is preposterous or not. That is contract law - also a bit of company law as well.

If there was another party for ACL to go pursue, why haven't they gone after them to recover the lost rent?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

Ian1779 said:
On a previous point - If a company has to put in place guarantors in respect to a rental deal and other arrangements it just goes to show how shit for the club the deal was in the first place.

It doesn't. It illustrates how financially unstable the contracting party is. Hence directors putting their 'cocks on the block'. It has more to do with the value of the contract and the net worth of the contracting party at the time of signing; than anything about the 'attractiveness' of the contract to either side

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

SkyBlueWomble said:
A football club isn't a contracting entity because a club isn't a legal person - the club's owner is. You cannot bind future owners or shareholders - you could restrict current owners from selling but that's another matter. It doesn't really matter whether you think is preposterous or not. That is contract law - also a bit of company law as well.

If there was another party for ACL to go pursue, why haven't they gone after them to recover the lost rent?

Have you ever seen a contract such as the one you are trying to comment upon? 'Trading as' is one common term used to capture that you cite as impossible

Ian1779 · Aug 8, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
It doesn't. It illustrates how financially unstable the contracting party is. Hence directors putting their 'cocks on the block'. It has more to do with the value of the contract and the net worth of the contracting party at the time of signing; than anything about the 'attractiveness' of the contract to either side

Not really... Having a guarantor on the rent deal is one thing because of the instability of your tenant. 'Forcing' someone to be a guarantor on 'other revenues' goes to show how little they thought of the club and it's future development.

SkyBlueWomble · Aug 8, 2014

Yes. A t/a contract will list the company(s) that it relates to - to avoid any legal confusion. It could not bind future parties without agreement of all parties.

Again, if the contract covered these eventualities why hasn't ACL gone after the other parties for the lost rent?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Not really... Having a guarantor on the rent deal is one thing because of the instability of your tenant is one thing. Forcing someone to be a guarantor on 'other revenues' goes to show how little they thought of the club.

It was a club deep in debt, unable to finish it's own stadium; and selling assets and revenues like they're going out of fashion. A director's guarantee is the least a sensible businessman would look for, entering a contract with a party with a track record like this. It's just business. sensible business. Not a sign of evil intent

Ian1779 · Aug 8, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
It was a club deep in debt, unable to finish it's own stadium; and selling assets and revenues like they're going out of fashion. A director's guarantee is the least a sensible businessman would look for, entering a contract with a party with a track record like this. It's just business. sensible business. Not a sign of evil intent

On rent - fair enough. But other revenues???

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

SkyBlueWomble said:
Yes. A t/a contract will list the company(s) that it relates to - to avoid any legal confusion. It could not bind future parties without agreement of all parties.

Again, if the contract covered these eventualities why hasn't ACL gone after the other parties for the lost rent?

Legal action is only worthwhile if there's a liable chance of success. Tell me whom ACL could have chased with a likely chance of recovery?

Rusty Trombone · Aug 8, 2014

Ian1779 said:
On rent - fair enough. But other revenues???

Who was guaranteeing other revenues?

Ian1779 · Aug 8, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Who was guaranteeing other revenues?

Clearly McGinnity and Robinson. Otherwise their 300K would have come out of the figure calculated today.

SkyBlueWomble · Aug 8, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Legal action is only worthwhile if there's a liable chance of success. Tell me whom ACL could have chased with a likely chance of recovery?

CCFC Holdings Ltd as it held the player contracts and other club assets.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 8, 2014

Ian1779 said:
On rent - fair enough. But other revenues???

Yes. It's business. Get Director's Guarantees to make sure they're committed and candid to all agreements. It's just good practise. When SISU came to the club, people were talking in glowing terms about these 'hard nosed' astute businessmen. Now ACL have been shown to be the party that properly covered off all bases, they're accused of being duplicitous?!?

Rusty Trombone · Aug 8, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Clearly McGinnity and Robinson. Otherwise their 300K would have come out of the figure calculated today.

No it wouldn't, the figure calculated today wasn't a rent payment. McGinninty and Robinson were guaranteeing rent.

Revenues - how much are they worth? (12 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency