so where are we right now CCFC wise (1 Viewer)

[stupot07]

i agree its disproportionate and unfair even more so now we have been relegated, but would they be asking for the rent to be reduced if we were in the premiership and they had all the extra cash coming in from that? no i dont think they would, they only wanted it reduced when we got relegated which they could of advoided.
Nobody wants the club to go to the wall but i just do not see why ACL and the council should pay for a private companies piss poor running of a football club that they aquired to make a killing on if they could, and now its all gone wrong they want everybody else to bail them out. They have enough money to buy the ground and try to make money that way but not to pay the rent or invest in the team??? how do they manage that?

I'm certainly not pro-Sisu, I want them gone if a viable option is available, but let's not re-write history the club had been financially mis-managed for years before they took over.

And of course they wouldn't be asking for a reduction if they got the the PL - the current rent is probably proportionate to what a PL team can afford.

 

---

[Grendel]

I'm certainly not pro-Sisu, I want them gone if a viable option is available, but let's not re-write history the club had been financially mis-managed for years before they took over.

And of course they wouldn't be asking for a reduction if they got the the PL - the current rent is probably proportionate to what a PL team can afford.

Apparantly he has said he will increase it should we ever be in the Premier League.

 

[Grendel]

Grendal tell you what - lets meet up before the first home game and I'll buy you a pint so we can continue this debate :wave: - don't forget we've on the same side you know

Everyone is on the same side but when people make comments like play at the Rugby club that to me is odd.

The council have now issued a statement saying they woul look to increase it if we were in the Premier League. That implies it should also be reduced in League 1 doesn't it?

 

[valiant15]

How many of you actually pay council tax to coventry city council?

 

[Grendel]

How many of you actually pay council tax to coventry city council?

How is that relevant?

 

[wingy]

How is that relevant?

Think Valliants emphasising the Point that if the Club gets a deal on the rent ,ACL could be driven into loss making situation ,then the ctizens of coventry would have to compensate for that.

 

[Godiva]

Think Valliants emphasising the Point that if the Club gets a deal on the rent ,ACL could be driven into loss making situation ,then the ctizens of coventry would have to compensate for that.

But that would be a poor deal - a good deal would be a rent where ACL is not making a loss and I think that will be the figure both sides could live with.

 

[WillieStanley]

That would be illegal. Seeing as someone else has brought it up. CCFC aren't the only people overcharged by the council. Coventry City Council charge one of the highest rates of council tax in the country. More that double that of Westminster and a lot more that most of the London Boroughs.

 

[Godiva]

That would be illegal. Seeing as someone else has brought it up. CCFC aren't the only people overcharged by the council. Coventry City Council charge one of the highest rates of council tax in the country. More that double that of Westminster and a lot more that most of the London Boroughs.

Sorry, what would be illigal and how does the tax-rate play any role?
The club pays rent to ACL - not the council.

 

[skyblueman]

Depends whether we think the rent is just too high anyway for a non-PL club - if it is then SISU should have sorted that out when they came in - else the club would have gone bust and the council and ACl left with no tenant

OR are we saying it's too much now because the club can't afford it? If so fair enough but I can't see how the club is going to justify any investment in the playing side on the back of that. If I owed one of my suppliers £10k and said to him - sorry but I can't afford that tell you what I'll pay you £7k instead - they might say OK - BUT next time they came buy and saw I'd just bought myself a new machine or van or something they might justifiably be a bit pissed off with that

Either way it's a problem and I'm sorry SISU but it's down to you now

 

[wingy]

But that would be a poor deal - a good deal would be a rent where ACL is not making a loss and I think that will be the figure both sides could live with.

To be honest Godiva i've never quite understood how ACL has such tiny turnover .OSB won't agree with me ,I personally don't think The Entity has been successful enough outside of the Football element,and have compared the 20 highly paid jobs to a Quango or council department .what do they actually do for this money ? Somewhere in the relationshipAnother £12.5 M. per year gets hidden by the arrangement with Compass ,whichever way the money travels it is part of the Story.

 

[Godiva]

To be honest Godiva i've never quite understood how ACL has such tiny turnover .OSB won't agree with me ,I personally don't think The Entity has been successful enough outside of the Football element,and have compared the 20 highly paid jobs to a Quango or council department .what do they actually do for this money ? Somewhere in the relationshipAnother £12.5 M. per year gets hidden by the arrangement with Compass ,whichever way the money travels it is part of the Story.

Don't worry about disagreeing with OSB - he actually likes a good debate and value different oppinions.

 

[WillieStanley]

Sorry, what would be illigal and how does the tax-rate play any role?
The club pays rent to ACL - not the council.

I was responding to the suggestion that any loss made by ACL could be subsidised through C/Tax.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Now here's where you can all accuse me for being naive, but I think the ship is now stabilizing and we are heading for calmer waters. is it ? or have we just been told things in the press to give the required impression
I have made a real nuisance of myself over the last 1½ years trying to explain why I find the actions made by the new regime (after sisu took control when Ranson, Hoffmann and Elliott left) necessary and key to our survival. I think sisu have got most of their decisions right since March last year - with one obvious (and spectacular) exception: Ken Dulieu.so not paying the rent, all but black mailing the charity and council, etc is ok ...... all we know is the little we are told by them and we have been able to put some big holes in that

I was also supportive of their decision to halt the rent payments. It was a necessary move as it was the only way to gain access to serious negotiation. £1.2m yearly rent is ridicolous. It was a figure we should be able to afford in PL, but in the championship it was simply too big a cost compared to our income. You can argue that the rent figure was known by sisu when they took over, but back then (before the financial crunch when investment money was easy to find) it was their plan to buy the stadium anyway, so negotiating lower rent cost was not on the agenda. As the reality changed with the global finacial meltdown and its impact on everything from access to investment funds to lower income on matchday, the £1.2m rent stood out as one of the largest single item in the accounts.
We should all be happy that the club is gaining support from the council to the rent negotiation with ACL. so you would support not paying the rent at all, not topping up the contractual agreed escrow ? what if the plan was not to pay the rent at all and to drive ACL down in value then buy it ?

So where are we right now?
First of all we're in league 1 - and before anyone gets started let me just say that no way were sisu planning, hoping or striving for relegation. Relegation has made their job tougher, and the value of the club - their investment - smaller. but there were actions they could have taken before, and who managed the club into its financial situation? yes i said managed not mismanaged
But in league 1 we are the big guns. A big club with a great stadium and a historical legacy. Attracting players in competition with Crawley, Stevenage, Yeovil etc will be easier when compared to all the glamorous clubs in the championship. i wouldnt be so quick to belittle the other clubs some are well backed and everyone will enjoy getting one over CCFC
We should be able to compete in this division, and if we can we could actually get into a winning mentality that can propel us forward even when we get back up. We have seen so many other clubs coming from league 1 full of momentum and blaze through the championship with ease. now where have i heard that before.... football just isnt that certain or straight forward .... logic might say it but ........

Second we are finally getting our finances in order. The wages have come down to match our income and with a few good player deals we should very close to overall breakeven. At least cashflow wise, which is the most important issue. have we ? i think we will still be making a loss this coming season and we don't know what additional costs like professional fees or interest have been built in plus the season ticket money has already been spent on the loan we took against it ..... tough times ahead. Only financial room created is to do with rent ..... is it to get that down or part of a bigger plan ?

Third we now seem to have a very capable board and management. I really like Fisher - maybe because I can decode his words. I am not turned off by the spin he has to produce. not sure we can decode it ..... we only interpret what he releases in carefully orchestrated media bites there is a differenceHe is walking a fine line when he speaks - if his too direct he may inflate any positive feelings there may be and if he says nothing the fans find the club to secretive and non-communicating. He cannot come out and say: Yes, we are trying to sell Keogh as we need the money to rebuild the team. First of all it would bring down the price of the player, second it would upset the rest of the team making them all feel very unsecure. Third if he fails to sell him for any reasons, Keogh would feel unwelcome and his performance would suffer greatly. So he spins it. Tells us they try to keep him and have presented him a new contract (probably one that is easily bettered by any championship club). Tells us if don't sign the club will have to cash in now or get nothing when he leaves for free next summer. hardly any secret to us or other clubs though everyone interested will know the club situation at the moment and that Keogh is for sale despite "contract" talks
Maybe you feel it's devious and even a sort of lying, but I find it to be good management.think it is just what we have heard so many times before ....... TF is not here for the love of it
Then there's Waggot who seem to handle contract negotiations and player trading with more flair than we have seen for quite some time. agreed
And I am also pretty confident with the player management team - AT, Carsley and Shaw. I have long wondered if Harrison had lost it, now he's gone and fresh idea's in training and tactics can be implemented.jury is out on that but prepared to give them time

My fourth and final note is related to us - the fans. If we get off to a reasonable start I think we will concentrate on supporting the team. Slowly we will put sisu out of our minds and just forget they are there. Sure, a few die hards will keep crusading against them, but there will be fewer that listens. One of the most destructive elements last season and easily as guilty of our relegation as any other reasons was the sisu-out-campaign. A steady start to the next season should eliminate that destructive force. We will never come to love sisu, but we should reach a state where we just accept they are there in the background. then i think we should make more effort to make sure we "know" what is going on is actually going on

So I am actually quite optimistic.
Bring on Yeovil!

Sorry to be argumentative Godiva :wave: just giving some alternatives

One thing everyone needs to bear in mind is that hedge funds do not change in nature and are driven solely by money and investment return. Do we take at face value or assume there are things going on behind the scenes that are designed to achieve the SISU goals :thinking about:

There is the PR orchestrated by CCFC/SISU agenda and there is what is actually going on imo

 

[Godiva]

Sorry to be argumentative Godiva :wave: just giving some alternatives

One thing everyone needs to bear in mind is that hedge funds do not change in nature and are driven solely by money and investment return. Do we take at face value or assume there are things going on behind the scenes that are designed to achieve the SISU goals :thinking about:

There is the PR orchestrated by CCFC/SISU agenda and there is what is actually going on imo

No need to be sorry for disagreeing - that's what forums are for (and I can take it ... mostly).

Hedge funds are not evil entities - they are a necessary investment vehicle with a useful and legal place in the financial world. You have a pension plan, right? I bet you that some of your money is placed by the pension company in hedge funds.
But we have all seen Wall Street I and II and how Hollywood created Gordon Gekko extremely one dimensionel. So now we believe that hedge funds are blood sucking parasites with hidden agenda's run by one dimensional money hungry people.
In fact hedge fund managers are simply (and simple) people like you and me - only they are trained and skilled in making investments in more risky businesses that the banks and other financial institutions won't touch. They are only paid if their investments gain in value - so of course they are desperat to turn the club around. Until then they are working for free. And the investors who have put in the money doesn't charge interest. Have you tried to calculate what we should have paid in interests if we were on normal bank loans?

I am not saying we should be grateful for sisu to work for free or having access to interest free money. It was their own decision to come here.
I am not even saying we should be grateful for them having saved us back when they took over. I only think we should have a less simplistic and one-dimensionel view on them. While they are here we have every right to demand they do their job properly and at least get most of their strategy and decisions right. Getting in bed with Ranson and placing the operation in his, Hoffmans and Elliotts hands turned out to be their most expensive failure, as they effectively ran the club to the ground.
How they managed to go from Ranson to Dulieu escapes me completely. (Was that Onye's decision? And have he since paid the price?). But at least they got rid of him fairly quickly.

It takes time to turn around a failing business and they are only 1½ year into the process (no, I don't think Ransons reign could be counted in as a turn-around). I am also very sceptical about us still losing 500K/month ... I really fail to see how, but I can understand if some think the newly published accounts is a mirror of the state right now (and not 1½ year ago) ... and I can understand why some may find it useful not to publicly tell the correct and present amount.
As you say - there's PR and then there's reality.

 

[wingy]

Did they really run the club into the ground Godiva? From the numbers it could look as though the rug was pulled very early on in the project ,by the sales of Fox +Dann . The consequence being they've blown a whole in the side of SS sky blue and possibly half of their investment has been wasted on pumping out the water.They really did lose confidence extremely early on.

 

[ericagradus]

i agree with nearly everything you have wrote there OSB apart from giving a cut in rent. why should they be given a cut in rent because they messed up? if you or i lose our job we have to pay the mortgage or lose our house why should SISU have it any different because they cant run a piss-up in a brewery?? i just dont think it should be reduced because of their miss mangaement and getting us relegated i know this will prove unpopular with some folks but its just my opinion

This is a tenant's market in the commercial world at the moment. It is not in the interest of any landlord to have any property empty, loss of rent and paying rates is worse then a reduced rent from an existing tenant.

I am seeing many landlords agreeing to reduce teh rent for their tenant on a day to day basis and this is the approach that I hope the Council will take.

 

[Godiva]

Did they really run the club into the ground Godiva? From the numbers it could look as though the rug was pulled very early on in the project ,by the sales of Fox +Dann . The consequence being they've blown a whole in the side of SS sky blue and possibly half of their investment has been wasted on pumping out the water.They really did lose confidence extremely early on.

The plan was upset very early, but in my oppinion not by the selling of players. The financial realities changed and the inabillity to get enough people through the gates and therefor not getting the budgeted income meant the board had to cover by selling players. The owners are not sugar-daddy's you can mail a postcard: Send More Money (please). They agreed a plan and a budget. It was not sisu's failure the budget wasn't kept and the plan had to change.
A hedge fund is not used to make operational decision within the company they have bought, they rely on proffesionels hired to do the job. In our case Ranson was the man who made the operational decisions and with him on the board was Hoffman and Elliott - those three had the voting power. In other circumstances sisu would probably have called for an EGM at some point early when the plan was not held, but as Ranson was a shareholder this was probably not an easy option (maybe even not a possible option, but I would have to read the shareholders agreement before making that assumption). So sisu's only option was to just say 'no - we're not sending any more money' which made life impossible for Ranson, Hoffman and Elliott.

The key is 'which happened first' - and the failing gates/income came before the selling of Fox and Dann.

 

[Grendel]

The plan was upset very early, but in my oppinion not by the selling of players. The financial realities changed and the inabillity to get enough people through the gates and therefor not getting the budgeted income meant the board had to cover by selling players. The owners are not sugar-daddy's you can mail a postcard: Send More Money (please). They agreed a plan and a budget. It was not sisu's failure the budget wasn't kept and the plan had to change.
A hedge fund is not used to make operational decision within the company they have bought, they rely on proffesionels hired to do the job. In our case Ranson was the man who made the operational decisions and with him on the board was Hoffman and Elliott - those three had the voting power. In other circumstances sisu would probably have called for an EGM at some point early when the plan was not held, but as Ranson was a shareholder this was probably not an easy option (maybe even not a possible option, but I would have to read the shareholders agreement before making that assumption). So sisu's only option was to just say 'no - we're not sending any more money' which made life impossible for Ranson, Hoffman and Elliott.

The key is 'which happened first' - and the failing gates/income came before the selling of Fox and Dann.

Difficult to argue with that - though plenty will.

 

[wingy]

PLEASE FORGIVE AS ONLY IN JEST <GALLOWS HUMUOR AND ALL THAT HOPE ITS NO METAPHOR

THERS CERTAINLY SOME SYNERGY WITH GREATNESS TO NOTHINGNESS!!!!!


Massey Ferguson's Coventry office block demolished with a bang

 

[Godiva]

It's one ugly building - demolision was the right strategy.

 

[wingy]

You could be missing the point ,its what it stood for /represents, the Culture ,the Personal Affiliation and History.....I Believe I'm referring to Connection.

 

[Godiva]

You could be missing the point ,its what it stood for /represents, the Culture ,the Personal Affiliation and History.....I Believe I'm referring to Connection.

Yes, I get it now - was a bit too fast to reply. (But it's still one ugly building!).

BTW - in my younger days I spend a few summer vacations on my uncles farm. I actually learned to drive their red MF work horse.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Godiva you sound very familiar to another poster "Tommy Atkins" seeing to blame the Cov Fans.

Yes average crowds fell in 08/09 from the previous season, 19,123 to 17,407 but remember we had the bumper cup run, 1/4 final sold out, 23,000 home fans for the replay against Blackburn. Towards the end of the season our home crowds tailed off we were safe from relegation but on a CC non-winning run.

If they pulled the rug based on that then they have no foresight or commercial acumen, a slight sniff of sucess and the crowds come. That season we had about 3 good performances at home winning against Wolves, Blues and Saints - the football was often poor, CC was a poor choice ~(their choice). What was the new strategy ? There was no strategy and we are we are now.

When blaming our attendances look around at QPR, Bolton Stoke before giving the Cov fans any stick.

 

[Chipfat]

So let me get this right JE,RR, GH and most fans for not going to games are the cause of our current plight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

While we have seen Ken D , Paul Clouting , Len Brody and now Tim 'Spin Fisher, swanning around conning all spouting about bounce back budgets, Franchise players, Same player budget as last year and worst of all the man who said i'm a director of coaching who made national news for standing on the bench with a clip board while knowing fook all about football!!!!!!!!!!.. The mind boggles, Sisu didn't want to fail and don't want to lose money but they are so far out of there depth its scary and are playing with many fans passion and love to the point where more than a few are losing interest..

But carry on blaming everyone including the owners from 10 , 15 or 20 years ago if you want but when we are falling even further, time will pass where SISU are the only one we can look at, Well that's if we knew who they were. Because Joy could walk past me in the ground and i wouldn't have any idea who she was,, but then again that's not going to happen is it..

 

[wingy]

Yes, I get it now - was a bit too fast to reply. (But it's still one ugly building!).

BTW - in my younger days I spend a few summer vacations on my uncles farm. I actually learned to drive their red MF work horse.

Grew up barely a Mile as the crow flies from Banner Lane, DAD did about 20 yrs there,winger in the works team for much of the 60's .Like you, drove a few of these growing up in the sticks .

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

just a few thoughts really

- havent found the link to TF's and to be honest I am almost at the point I am not interested in what he said. It will be the same things, the same spin, the same stating the obvious. It is often what he doesn't say that's important. Yes the business has to be sustainable, yes funds will be used to pay for day to day trading, yes we all hope more players will come in, yes we all hope for a tilt at promotion etc.... but what is the plan TF and how will you stick to it?

- Waggott I think that in him we actually have someone that understands the transfer market and will do some clever dealing. I think he can work within the budget which must also be within the FFP rules (two different things really the budget is for breakeven, the way the FFP rules work the actual limit might be bigger than the budget to breakeven). I am willing to believe for now that by the end of August we will have a fighting chance in this division and the squad will be bigger and competitive because of Waggotts skills..... but time will tell

- Gael's sale I didn't like, we should be holding on to our best talent, should be building teams with them, maximising the benefit to the club. However I suspect cashflow for running the club and bringing in new players is so tight that some unpopular decisions have to be taken simply to keep going. That sale could fund 4 players wages brought in on free transfers..... or it could knock a hole in this years losses and fund day to day costs .... it certainly will give the club more room to operate under the FFP rules should they choose to. Who else in our squad would command a reported £1m? I didnt like it but can see perhaps why

- player sales .... we dont like it but it is where we are. There are no great funds to come in, player sales are a major source of income and a necessity. It isnt a secret, TF has said there will be Waggott has said there will be, the auditors have said there will be ........ so why is anyone surprised when there are ? The crux of the matter is not the sales .... the crux of the matter is what are the replacements both in quantity and quality

- New players ..... give them a chance folks, at least let them play a few games for us before slagging them off.

- existing players ..... well the same really, give them the chance to make amends (especially likes of McSheffery, Bell, Baker) before we nail them to the wall. Ok i accept they perhaps deserve less sympathy but ....

- AT .... well I guess he gets a chance again from me. Tried to be fair to him last season but am still of the opinion that he was for much of the season short of what was required. He has to start much better in his organisation and understanding this year. He is what we have and as such we support him but that doesnt mean we shouldnt question him

The Council - heard a radio report from Mr Mutton this morning. Suggesting a rent reduction would be appropriate, not actually the Councils decision but there you go. It would seem appropriate however. Some of the comments appeared contradictory and simplistic though. "I dont know the figures for the CCFC budget" followed by "last year they lost 6 to 7m and already lost £3.7m league money" and other such stuff .... surely that says the council have seen some figures?. I stopped listening to be honest, radio was on but it wasnt going in.

- "the radio was on but it wasnt going in" "the article was in the paper but I couldnt be bothered to read it" ......... these I think are worrying thoughts or comments. I feel so worn down by all the double talk and spin that like many fans I am losing interest. For a few brief moments last week there was a football buzz about CCFC then they sold Bigi and it was all about finance and SISU again. It almost felt like a positive direction for the club lost

- Just to be clear the £52m debt in CCFC accounts to 2011 is not the relevant figure.... the relevant debt is the £29.7m owed to SISU by the whole group of companies plus the £2m to ARVO. The debt shown in the CCFC accounts includes losses pre SISU that SISU wrote down when they bought in. It is just a quirk in group accounts that they could adjust if they wanted to. What SISU have funded is Group losses to 31/05/11 £21m plus the debt they took over £8m plus any losses or funding requirement since then (after accounting for Prozone sale, money from the likes of Dann, Gunnarrson etc, not paying the rent and reducing the escrow account, less the costs of Waggott and/or other specialists)

Seems to be a roller coast ride as ever ...... good news followed by bad followed by positive followed by bad followed by bad followed by positive..... cant wait till the season starts and hopefully we start winning much more regularly..... surely our results will be better this coming season ??????

Best thing I've read on here in weeks