So the real Poll (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
No, that's trying to have a dig. Most people said "Where have all my likes gone?" and I have said "Don't worry, when I get to a computer I will add them for you as it is a manual process".
You have read the "New Site" thread as well, so yes it is safe to say you were trying to have a dig or prove a point. Not related to Bob Latchford are you?
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Where's my
face gone in that quote? That's a clear indication of a joke, which you yourself regularly use to show a light hearted post.
Nick
Administrator
Yep, then you went again in your next post.Where's my
That's a clear indication of a joke, which you yourself regularly use to show a light hearted post.
Predictable somebody would say something like it though
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Yep, then you went again in your next post.
Predictable somebody would say something like it though
A reply to your question?
Like I say, I was just curious. No need to get so uptight about it.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That was obviously the problem. You moved mine first and it took that long you haven't had chance to move anyone else's yet.
Am I right?
Nick
Administrator
I had to read every post you got a like for in case there was like fraud
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Might be coming at this from different slants Grendel but I think we both agree that CCFC is at greater risk now because of what is being said and done.
other ......
From what I understand from this week is that certain options (the Ricoh) have been down graded and that our only real option is BPA. Wasps are going to play hard ball certainly in their position who wouldn't. They do not make lots of money out of the deal, so its not so much they don't want CCFC there it is more they do not need CCFC there. The club do not have money to buy in and I suspect the owners would rather go elsewhere than give Wasps money.
I know we see things with sky blue tinted glasses on here but CCFC is not a cash cow to Wasps/ACL. Yes CCFC only get a split of the net profit on the F& B but they don't pay any of the costs. Hospitality I would think has minimum levels to cover costs and the take up at CCFC matches has not been good. In the scheme of things the car parking is not going to be a massive earner and if CCFC were not there Wasps would seek to drive other events and pick up the slack.
There are always at least two sides to the story. We don't often hear much from Wasps about the arrangements. Yes they have commitments to meet but I would be surprised if that wasn't already mapped out and anyone would be mad to rely on a risky football team to solve it. I suspect CA has tried to get things as cheap as possible (as you would expect, nothing wrong in that) talking up the benefits of CCFC being there but not the hard cash. Wasps have said well actually we don't earn a lot from you and we cant rely on maybes oh and by the way no long term deal whilst legals are going on. Not quite the picture painted in the press but each are entitled to see it and express it their way
Bottom line is as I said last week the bridges are being burnt and its a high risk strategy whilst the only option is by no means certain.
Oh just to be clear if it is in the best interests of CCFC to go to BPA and it works long term then great - will make a change for the interests of our club to be put first, and that's the bit I am really struggling to believe in
other ......
From what I understand from this week is that certain options (the Ricoh) have been down graded and that our only real option is BPA. Wasps are going to play hard ball certainly in their position who wouldn't. They do not make lots of money out of the deal, so its not so much they don't want CCFC there it is more they do not need CCFC there. The club do not have money to buy in and I suspect the owners would rather go elsewhere than give Wasps money.
I know we see things with sky blue tinted glasses on here but CCFC is not a cash cow to Wasps/ACL. Yes CCFC only get a split of the net profit on the F& B but they don't pay any of the costs. Hospitality I would think has minimum levels to cover costs and the take up at CCFC matches has not been good. In the scheme of things the car parking is not going to be a massive earner and if CCFC were not there Wasps would seek to drive other events and pick up the slack.
There are always at least two sides to the story. We don't often hear much from Wasps about the arrangements. Yes they have commitments to meet but I would be surprised if that wasn't already mapped out and anyone would be mad to rely on a risky football team to solve it. I suspect CA has tried to get things as cheap as possible (as you would expect, nothing wrong in that) talking up the benefits of CCFC being there but not the hard cash. Wasps have said well actually we don't earn a lot from you and we cant rely on maybes oh and by the way no long term deal whilst legals are going on. Not quite the picture painted in the press but each are entitled to see it and express it their way
Bottom line is as I said last week the bridges are being burnt and its a high risk strategy whilst the only option is by no means certain.
Oh just to be clear if it is in the best interests of CCFC to go to BPA and it works long term then great - will make a change for the interests of our club to be put first, and that's the bit I am really struggling to believe in
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
The club will never own a stadium. We don't own the Ricoh and we wont own the Butts and we wont own the pie-in-the-sky new stadium. It's just a case of who we will owe money to. It's makes more sense to stay at the Ricoh rather than take on additional debt, at least until we get promoted (if ever).
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And this is the issue. It seems we have two choices.
1. Stay at the Ricoh as we will never get promotion with SISU and we don't want more debt.
2. If we leave the Ricoh we should have a 30K stadium in case we get into the Premiership although we probably won't because of SISU. But..if we do...we need lots of seats, which would get into debt anyway.
Sent from my P9000 using Tapatalk
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Actually league average was 9332 and it was less than £8.40 per person per visit - haven't factored in any cup games
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Its shocking when you look at those figures.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Would like to know what Sisu hope to achieve by taking to court both parties that they will need to help them/us in the future?
It appears to me that they are like an upset child in a tantrum and unable to apply logic to the situation.
It appears to me that they are like an upset child in a tantrum and unable to apply logic to the situation.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
We won't own any new stadium hence why getting the Ricoh was so key now we are told wasps don't want us there well I am sure they do but with current legals and our football club on a real low we are not the safest bet in the world are we.
I still can't see better than staying at the Ricoh if we are allowed. We have and hopefully will still have an affordable deal and we have like OSB said no costs and for the money that's fine. I would love to see what a promotion does, whether sisu go and or we have more money. The championship is in the top 5 most watched in Europe.
I still can't see any benefit to 15k stadium and see this as just a step backwards even if we do "own it" the future is at the Ricoh for now albeit in a shit situation but what can we do.
We know we are there for two more years which isn't long at all. Already been back for two years. No time. The longer it drags the longer things are up in the air the worse it will be.
What's the solution long term I don't really know but short term we are homeless again in 2 years time.
I still can't see better than staying at the Ricoh if we are allowed. We have and hopefully will still have an affordable deal and we have like OSB said no costs and for the money that's fine. I would love to see what a promotion does, whether sisu go and or we have more money. The championship is in the top 5 most watched in Europe.
I still can't see any benefit to 15k stadium and see this as just a step backwards even if we do "own it" the future is at the Ricoh for now albeit in a shit situation but what can we do.
We know we are there for two more years which isn't long at all. Already been back for two years. No time. The longer it drags the longer things are up in the air the worse it will be.
What's the solution long term I don't really know but short term we are homeless again in 2 years time.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Frim what i understsndnJR2 won't be taking wasps to court, its about CCC decision.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Moff
Well-Known Member
But the logic is, as OSB eloquently explained, that Wasps are playing hard ball, and don't need us at the Ricoh, so what's the point of staying if we get very little benefit financially of being there? unless mid table league one mediocrity is what you aspire to.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
All depends on the business case of where you are moving to and the reasons for doing it
You see I can quite easily see that we move and nothing really changes. We could easily be mid table mediocre L1 side at either venue. We may get a season of success and promotion but unless the owners are prepared to invest heavily every year then I can not see it being maintained. My own guess is that to maintain position in Championship it is probably going to require upwards of £5m extra money from the owners every year on top of the 365 day incomes from the set up. That means even more debt piled on to the club on top of the debt already costing over £1.3m interest now.
But there will be extra income from the BPA ground, well yes but there will be extra costs too, together with a capacity ceiling. Not to mention the costs of building will need to be met.
I put an idea forward yesterday that the other elements to the project might be the real driver in this. In which case you could see CCFC trapped in a 15k stadium with no real net income gain and the only benefit being able to say its not the Ricoh. SISU could arrange the sale of the rental collecting property company to say a pension fund and take a return. I think one retort was whats in it for CRFC - well they have the long lease they would have a nice ground not too big and if the property company sold off would have a nice pot of money.
Staying at the Ricoh restricts income as it presently stands but it also for the time being restricted cost. The £100k rent is artificially low and offset by income that the club gets for little or no cost. That will certainly change if they stay there.
All depends on what is actually driving this for the CCFC owners. The driver for CRFC I would think a new ground.
Again I repeat this is just conjecture on my part. But I don't see what keeps SISU here other than a return for its investors
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Wasps are not going to roll over and it's up to Sisu to get the best deal they can not give in because they don't get 100%. It will always be a compromise.
The trouble is that the deal needs to be future proof so needs to take into account additional 'other' incomes should we go up the league. Increased rent yes but things like corporate etc will increase and we need good access to those incomes.
Can't see how Sisu can seriously negotiate with outstanding legal battles, particularly as JR2 will challenge the deal between CCC and Wasps.
To say the 17 points have been rejected is incorrect.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Spot on OSB, allowing SISU get out & leave CCFC in a hole.
It may be a solution that suits them & their investors, but it isn't a solution which suits the club.
It may be a solution that suits them & their investors, but it isn't a solution which suits the club.
Moff
Well-Known Member
But what if the compromise isn't any good to the club, regardless of SISU's ownership or potential new owners if that ever happens.
We are talking about the club, and its survival, and (if ever) its prosperity. If we are hamstrung by an appalling deal at the Ricoh we will forever be league one (or lower) fodder. Regardless of court cases etc, we will never get a good deal, they don't really need us.
Re the 17 points being rejected is incorrect. Where is the proof of this being the case, as we can all make assumptions, but without facts it doesn't mean its true.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Thanks OSB, an interesting analysis. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I think the one thing we all agree on, is the club will only prosper when we see the back of SISU. Its just no one can see any end to their continual games with CCFC.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Give us the lowdown - without spin or exclamation marks, if possible - on the 17 points and proof they haven't been rejected.
Sent from my P9000 using Tapatalk
Are Wasps really playing hardball ? Currently we have to pay circa £4500 per match { based on League games only }. Isn't that now the other end of the scale and quite cheap ? I imagine Wasps would like to see perhaps something like £300,000 per season, rising if we got promoted. What would the cost really be to build anything in CV1 at the BPA, £££ Millions and then would we own it ?
City won't be going anywhere, SISU quite rightly are trying to keep the deal realistic.
City won't be going anywhere, SISU quite rightly are trying to keep the deal realistic.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Its not SISU negotiating. Its Chris Anderson on behalf of CCFC. How do other companies manage to work together when one is taking legal action? Not like its a situation unique to us.
Where has this come from? Do you have information the rest of us don't?
Otis
Well-Known Member
I don't want to be liked.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Key word there is currently.
Also worth pointing out matchday costs have been bumped up which, to all intents and purposes, is the equivalent to a rent increase. Its still a hell of a lot less than we were paying before though.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Really? Is that a fact? I'd like to see what you know on this.
The court case nonsense is hogwash as well as wasps have offered as I understand it a deal to the club - nothing to do with court cases.
I believe there are huge issues all over the place and they are miles apart especially on certain key areas.
What have you heard about the actual rental proposal that the club has been offered as a league one rent? I would be interested definitely in that.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Also worth pointing out that we'd have to pay matchday costs whatever our situation including a partnership at the BPA. So not really an equivilent to a rent increase. It's an unavoidable cost for any football team whether that be renting, free hold ownwership or lease hold ownweship.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Matchday costs is used as a catch all for a number of things. So while there are certain things we would indeed have to pay, others we wouldn't or would get at a much lower rate. For example before having all stands open and car park spaces were a couple of examples of things covered in matchday costs, since our return they aren't. If we want extra blocks open we pay more. When we need to provide parking for players, staff, media etc we have to pay for the spaces.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
I guess it's from the same piece i read from CA
"But today he struck a different note concerning any prospect of staying at the Ricoh, saying his 17-point negotiation plan with Wasps over revenues had come to nought."
I've asked the same question on another thread (sorry). Is there a different statement from CA that I haven't seen, as this does not say they've said no on every point?
It seems one or two posters are using that "didn't agree any of the 17 points" as if it is a fact. Is it?
Moff
Well-Known Member
So Italia, despite repeated requests, we are still waiting for you to tell us how the 17 points being rejected is incorrect?
Is there any chance of an answer?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I'm referring to the posts above saying it's been rejected outright.
I'm taking my information from CA comments not the slanted LR observer comments. CA hasn't said they have been rejected, he's saying they can't give him what the club wants. In the end the 17 points will be compromised and what they agree will be the business case for staying at the Ricoh.
Last edited:
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
One known fact is WASPS want a 10 year lease, no break clauses and rent to be agreed after the current 2 year agreement.
Sounds a bit like the CCC agreement at the Ricoh!