Statement from ACL ? When ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Voice_of_Reason
- Start date
CCFC_GT
New Member
Would 77% of the F&B rights would be more beneficial than building a new stadium?
imp:
77% of IEC is not just F&B rights, it is all Ricoh catering and site management revenues, and would be far more beneficial than adding to the existing £60M or whatever existing debts by having virtually no income for 3 to 5 years or more, during which time the football club will languish and undoubtedly fall further as the playing budget disappears and debts increase. Even if SISU did eventually build a new stadium at additional £ millions of debt, it would never recover all its accumulated debt through the sale of the new development and the football club.
So how is a new stadium beneficial to either CCFC or SISU?
Last edited:
grego_gee
New Member
SISU have been owners for 5 years.
they have paid ALL the bills for 5 years and yet get so much abuse its amazing they are still here.
Those bills include £7.5 m in rent that has gone out of their organisation.
Much better if it is internal in the same organisation even if the stadium is not "owned" by the club.
Whether "fans" that desert their own club by withdrawing their "support" ever "come back" is of little consequence.
they can "do one"!
imp:Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Rejection of the CVA on the face of it at least doesn't make any sense however as liquidation completely voids the existing lease then it gives a chance for them to go directly to Otium to hammer something out. A long, cheap lease with bought out access to ACL's cut of the IEC venture with Compass and the potential for future ownership should be acceptable to all parties.
duffer
Well-Known Member
SISU have been owners for 5 years.
they have paid ALL the bills for 5 years and yet get so much abuse its amazing they are still here.
Those bills include £7.5 m in rent that has gone out of their organisation.
Much better if it is internal in the same organisation even if the stadium is not "owned" by the club.
Whether "fans" that desert their own club by withdrawing their "support" ever "come back" is of little consequence.
they can "do one"!
Come off it. SISU have drip fed the club for the last few years, and their only plan has been to break ACL for the last year.
In that plan they've had utterly no regard for the fans.
They've ripped the assets out of what was the club and manouvered in such a way that even if their someone willing to take CCFC forward they couldn't afford to take on huge debt that SISU have somehow managed to load onto us.
And you think we should be grateful. If this isn't a wind up, then it really should be.
The Penguin
Well-Known Member
SISU have been owners for 5 years.
they have paid ALL the bills for 5 years and yet get so much abuse its amazing they are still here.
Those bills include £7.5 m in rent that has gone out of their organisation.
Much better if it is internal in the same organisation even if the stadium is not "owned" by the club.
Whether "fans" that desert their own club by withdrawing their "support" ever "come back" is of little consequence.
they can "do one"!
Alright, firstly, I was not posing the questions as some sort of snarky attack. They were genuine questions that one would need to estimate in order to properly answer your original question. In order for our own stadium to be a better option, it would need to be more profitable (or, at the very least, provide greater revenue) than having 77% of the Ricoh's F & B.
This would depend a great deal on our crowds at the new stadium. If years at Northampton have burned the majority of our fanbase away, then there goes that option.
I'm aware that the plan is to have an "entertainment complex" kind of feel to the place, but then that puts us in direct competition with the Ricoh, and there are no guarantees that we would come out on top there.
As far as paying rent at Mystical Stadium, it is much better for them if it is 'internal', sure. Is it better for the football club?
Finally, your last point is pretty poor. A club like ours needs all the fans it can get, whether you like it or not. We're not Manchester United, who would not notice 6-7000 plus people no longer buying their merchandise and tickets. You take that many paying customers out of our club, it leaves us up shit creek. If this new stadium is to work then the club will need all the people who refused to travel to Northampton, otherwise we will still be playing in a ground that's too big for us, we won't be making any money, and we won't be going anywhere other than the lower echelons of the Football League.
Gint11
Well-Known Member
I believe talking point 1 in the meeting was the CVA and the next point was the 10 year lease proposal. As the CVA was rejected after 10minutes, talking point 2 could not be discussed. There is a possibility we could still end up back at the Ricoh but we do need a statement from ACL as to why they made this decision. I am surprised they haven't released one yet.
M&B Stand
Well-Known Member
Very level headed post MB.
You put forward several good arguments why the SISU hatred is difficult to understand, but then at the end you say yourself "I don't want SISU running the club".
I am not really criticising - it just typifies the angst that we all feel.
but the two lines I have picked in bold contradict each other,
you cannot have a club that can be as successful as possible in a stadium that was built for them in the first place if the profits made there should somehow go to the city rather than the team that generates them.
I haven't put it very well. I basically mean the stadium is either the home of the club with all possibles revenues going to it, to give it every chance to compete finacially OR it is a separate business where the profits made from the tenant, catering and concerts etc go to the council & Higgs
I honestly don't think it can be both, but what do I know.
grego_gee
New Member
STOP MAKING UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS!
The fact is they have financed us to the full extent of FFP!
Lets see you show that to be not the case?
Yes they have debt written into the accounts to fend off hostile take overs - apparently quite wisely with CCC/ACL courting Heskell etc.
That would not prevent them selling to a fair offer, if there was anybody out there that was prepared to make one!
imp:Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
STOP MAKING UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS!
The fact is they have financed us to the full extent of FFP!
Lets see you show that to be not the case?
Yes they have debt written into the accounts to fend off hostile take overs - apparently quite wisely with CCC/ACL courting Heskell etc.
That would not prevent them selling to a fair offer, if there was anybody out there that was prepared to make one!
They have only been under FFP constraints since entering the division they got us relegated to in 2012. Indeed, they are tearing up what the club can afford based on these rules by doing things like moving the club to Northampton, a ground less than a quarter the size of the Ricoh, selling merchandise from a stall and not agreeing a new sponsor.
Our budget will be a joke.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Haven't ACL done the club a favour ?
By not agreeing the CVA did all the debt not leave the club and various SISU funds take the hit?
If signed would the club via Optium not have picked up the amount paid to clear Ltd debts?
Surely ACL have cleared CCFC debt. Heroes?
No wonder TF is pi$$ed off.
By not agreeing the CVA did all the debt not leave the club and various SISU funds take the hit?
If signed would the club via Optium not have picked up the amount paid to clear Ltd debts?
Surely ACL have cleared CCFC debt. Heroes?
No wonder TF is pi$$ed off.
grego_gee
New Member
My initial proposition was a little rhetorical, I think the possibility of developing a new stadium and taking the whole of the benefits that the council have enjoyed with the Ricoh at the club's expense goes way beyond 77% of the F&B (even if that %age were to extend to revenue beyond that generated directly by the club, which I doubt).
Yes it is better for the club if the owners (who are paying all our costs) are in a better position themselves. It is also more likely that they would give better terms to the club than any outside body. It is also beneficial if the club and stadium are under the same ownership so can be sold together.
And yes I admit my last statement was a little provocative (poor even) but I am exasperated by the number of fans apparently prepared to turn their back on the club, they can not call themselves supporters!
but thank you for a good & polite post
imp:
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Thank goodness for ACL. They stopped the SISU threat of liquidation...
Otis
Well-Known Member
But that always seemed the likely outcome of this didn't it? Liquidation or not.
Would the rent deal still stand ?
If it was signed as condition of CVA then ACL would have got £590000 as well.
Now if SISU came back and said ok we will accept your offer of £150000 a year I would assume that ACL would be less likely to sign as they should be able to make up that amount without tying up the Ricoh for 23 weeks a year
If it was signed as condition of CVA then ACL would have got £590000 as well.
Now if SISU came back and said ok we will accept your offer of £150000 a year I would assume that ACL would be less likely to sign as they should be able to make up that amount without tying up the Ricoh for 23 weeks a year
grego_gee
New Member
What are you saying Otis?
No, We would NOT have had a 10pt deduction this season if ACL had signed the CVA!
imp: