The financial arguement for a new ground (1 Viewer)

chiefdave · Sep 26, 2013

I see a lot of posts, both here and on twitter, stating as fact that a new ground will leave CCFC better off financially. So does anyone have an idea on actual figures that back this up?

The last offer we know was on the the table from ACL was £400K a year plus access to their share of match day revenues so lets use that as a basis and lets assume any new ground is owned by CCFC rather than SISU.

Given the cost of financing a new ground (going of the £20m Rotherham paid and a 12K capacity) how many years, if ever, are we looking at before we actually get ahead. I can't imagine things like naming rights are going to be of huge value for a relatively low cost stadium, There's potential lost ticket revenue if we are in a smaller ground. It may be modular / expandable but what about one off games like the JPT game or a cup game against a prem side, they can't expand it that quick! It's unlikely to have the level of conferance facilites the Rioch has and given it will be out of the city I can't imagine a huge uptake for other events being held there. Especially if the Ricoh is sat there ready and waiting for things such as representative games and concerts.

So can someone who is good with figures and has the relevant information available, such as how much those much talked about match day revenue streams actually bring in, show me how this is going to actually work out for the better even if everyone does come back if the ground is ever built.

skybluesam66 · Sep 26, 2013

the only way it works is if they can get 1 year in the premier league in the next 5-10 years (before the tv deals start to reduce)
That would bring around £100m windfall, and would just about pay losses to date + northampton losses = new ground etc

chiefdave · Sep 26, 2013

skybluesam66 said:
the only way it works is if they can get 1 year in the premier league in the next 5-10 years (before the tv deals start to reduce)
That would bring around £100m windfall, and would just about pay losses to date + northampton losses = new ground etc

but equally if that was the idea better to stay at the Ricoh. Even at £1.2m a year rent with PL ticket prices and crowds they'd be able to walk away with a profit. And of course don't forget that to accommodate 30K crowds would require more money to be spent on this new stadium, we don't know how much extra it would cost to increase the capacity to that level.

Spionkop · Sep 26, 2013

Chiefdave, thank God there is someone with some sanity on here. The money doesn't stack up at all does it. Utter madness.
Dongonzalos spelt it out on another thread. The insanity that is Sisu. And the same old sneering Sisu fuckwits come out and try and run him down.
Are these Sisu idiots blind and deaf, they're certainly dumb.
Anyone who has an ounce of support or sympathy for SISU after that stage managed 'interview' with Sepalla, wants certified.
Just stay away from Sixfields. Support that and you are contributing to the downfall of our club.

theferret · Sep 26, 2013

Spionkop said:
Chiefdave, thank God there is someone with some sanity on here. The money doesn't stack up at all does it. Utter madness.
Dongonzalos spelt it out on another thread. The insanity that is Sisu. And the same old sneering Sisu fuckwits come out and try and run him down.
Are these Sisu idiots blind and deaf, they're certainly dumb.
Anyone who has an ounce of support or sympathy for SISU after that stage managed 'interview' with Sepalla, wants certified.
Just stay away from Sixfields. Support that and you are contributing to the downfall of our club.

Meltdown.

theferret · Sep 26, 2013

chiefdave said:
I see a lot of posts, both here and on twitter, stating as fact that a new ground will leave CCFC better off financially. So does anyone have an idea on actual figures that back this up?

The last offer we know was on the the table from ACL was £400K a year plus access to their share of match day revenues so lets use that as a basis and lets assume any new ground is owned by CCFC rather than SISU.

Given the cost of financing a new ground (going of the £20m Rotherham paid and a 12K capacity) how many years, if ever, are we looking at before we actually get ahead. I can't imagine things like naming rights are going to be of huge value for a relatively low cost stadium, There's potential lost ticket revenue if we are in a smaller ground. It may be modular / expandable but what about one off games like the JPT game or a cup game against a prem side, they can't expand it that quick! It's unlikely to have the level of conferance facilites the Rioch has and given it will be out of the city I can't imagine a huge uptake for other events being held there. Especially if the Ricoh is sat there ready and waiting for things such as representative games and concerts.

So can someone who is good with figures and has the relevant information available, such as how much those much talked about match day revenue streams actually bring in, show me how this is going to actually work out for the better even if everyone does come back if the ground is ever built.

Why are you factoring those things into your 'calculations', given that under your 400K rent scenario the club wouldn't get a penny of those revenues.

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

Spionkop said:
Just stay away from Sixfields. Support that and you are contributing to the downfall of our club.

No you're not.

RPHunt · Sep 26, 2013

Citing Rotherham as an example is very misleading.

The council in Rotherham were right behind the project - they bought the land for the stadium, gave a long lease to the club and lent them £5m towards the cost of the stadium. Planning permission was never an issue and the council were behind the necessary changes to surrounding infrastructure. The project was also able to secure funding from the ERD.

None of this would apply to a SISU built stadium in or around Coventry. So unless their real intentions are to find a more accomodating local authority, a long way from Coventry, then they are going to be faced with a long and expensive process that no sane investor would go near.

chiefdave · Sep 26, 2013

theferret said:
Why are you factoring those things into your 'calculations', given that under your 400K rent scenario the club wouldn't get a penny of those revenues.

Think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not saying that we get money now for those things. I'm saying those currently using the Ricoh aren't likely to walk away and relocate to our new out of town stadium so we won't see increased income from those type of events in the scenario where we own the ground. Fisher has implied that the new stadium will be multiuse, will hold concerts etc. What I'm saying is I don't think that's viable. People can complain about there only being a couple of stadium concerts a year at the Ricoh but when you compare to other new grounds they're doing exceptionally well. For example the closest new ground to me is St Marys, in 12 years since it opened they have had 3 shows. The Ricoh is highly regarded in the industry (in fact the team at the Rioch are up for an award as the best stadium team along with Wembley and one other I can't remember).

Given that even with these level of facilities and attracting a decent number of events we have Fisher telling us ACL have struggled how is our proposed new stadium that will most likely not be able to attract anywhere near the same level of events or have anywhere near the same level of facilities be a viable proposal?

theferret · Sep 26, 2013

chiefdave said:
Think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not saying that we get money now for those things. I'm saying those currently using the Ricoh aren't likely to walk away and relocate to our new out of town stadium so we won't see increased income from those type of events in the scenario where we own the ground. Fisher has implied that the new stadium will be multiuse, will hold concerts etc. What I'm saying is I don't think that's viable. People can complain about there only being a couple of stadium concerts a year at the Ricoh but when you compare to other new grounds they're doing exceptionally well. For example the closest new ground to me is St Marys, in 12 years since it opened they have had 3 shows. The Ricoh is highly regarded in the industry (in fact the team at the Rioch are up for an award as the best stadium team along with Wembley and one other I can't remember).

Given that even with these level of facilities and attracting a decent number of events we have Fisher telling us ACL have struggled how is our proposed new stadium that will most likely not be able to attract anywhere near the same level of events or have anywhere near the same level of facilities be a viable proposal?

Concerts no, but day to day business activities and social functions yes. There is a huge market in this city for business/conference facilities and there is no reason why we could not get a share of that market. Take a look at old accounts from the HR days - they made a surprising amount from those sort of activities, and they were pretty shit facilities in a pretty shit part of the city. Nobody is saying a new facility could compete directly with the Ricoh, nevertheless the ability to be able to benefit day to day from commercial activities is crucial. Many small clubs at this level simply could not compete without those extra incomes. Don't Walsall make over £1 million from their Sunday market alone?

italiahorse · Sep 26, 2013

Don't forget if you own the stadium you pay ALL the bills as well. Rates, services, water, sewage, waste removal and management costs. A lot of these are included when renting the Ricoh.

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
No you're not.

So you oppose NOPM then do you? Each to their own. I think you are and he thinks you are. It's called opinion

dongonzalos · Sep 26, 2013

I was thinking this as well.

Ms Seppalla says they can fund the loses to get a return on their investment. That a temporary return to the Ricoh whilst building the stadium is not a viable option.

I do think with a consistent play off firm run you could be having a 14-15 k season average at the Ricoh.

How much will SISU lose from sponsorship Merchandising and a to be kind 11k ticket gap over 5 years.

The rent cancels itself out as they are paying rent at six fields.

Add the cost of building the stadium to the losses over 5 years to the 60 million that Ms Seppala states SISU have already invested.

I think you are talking over 5 years
Approx 10 million in lost revenue from been at Sixfields compared to the Ricoh.

Add that to a 25 million stadium build.

You are talking SISU having to sell the whole package for 100 million to get a return on their investment.

The reason a temporary return to the Ricoh is not an option is because this is the sole business plan

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
So you oppose NOPM then do you? Each to their own. I think you are and he thinks you are. It's called opinion

I do oppose fully the principles of NOPM, yes, in terms of not giving them cash will get them back quicker. That's nonsense in my view, all it does is make it more likely the club does not exist quicker.

I can accept the not wanting to go to Sixfields because disenfranchised fro the club; having been disenfranchised from the club for a while now, I haven't contributed them any cash in ticket sales myself.

However, to say that by going you're killing the club is, frankly, nonsense and stands up in no financial logic whatsoever. In fact you, me, whoever doesn't go is more likely to be killing the club!

By going, you won't be driving the club to stay away from the city by the act of going. You may, in fact, be giving it a chance of returning.

That's a totally different view to feeling disenfranchised and not wanting to go because of that. I'm comfortable in the fact that if anybody's killing the club among fans, it's more likely to be the likes of me, who is not going.

duffer · Sep 26, 2013

I can't see any way the new stadium stacks up either. If you want to get the sort of revenue the Ricoh pulls in, then you'd have to build somewhere like the Ricoh.

Instead, it seems we're talking about building somewhere like the New Meadow (Shrewsbury's ground, which holds less than 10,000).

If that's the case even if we do end up back in the Championship, you can't maximise the profit. And with the best will in the world investors will still want paying back, no one is going to gift SISU & CCFC £20 - £30 million. So you've got lower income and higher debt.

The New Meadow, btw, might have been built quickly but planning permission took a number of years to sort. According to all independent sources, nothing has been submitted to any of our surrounding councils.

It's just not achievable, to my mind. My opinion is that SISU's plan is the Ricoh or bust. The JR may hold the key.

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
I do oppose fully the principles of NOPM, yes, in terms of not giving them cash will get them back quicker. That's nonsense in my view, all it does is make it more likely the club does not exist quicker.

I can accept the not wanting to go to Sixfields because disenfranchised fro the club; having been disenfranchised from the club for a while now, I haven't contributed them any cash in ticket sales myself.

However, to say that by going you're killing the club is, frankly, nonsense and stands up in no financial logic whatsoever. In fact you, me, whoever doesn't go is more likely to be killing the club!

By going, you won't be driving the club to stay away from the city by the act of going. You may, in fact, be giving it a chance of returning.

That's a totally different view to feeling disenfranchised and not wanting to go because of that. I'm comfortable in the fact that if anybody's killing the club among fans, it's more likely to be the likes of me, who is not going.

This has been said lots of times before, but what the heck.

By going you are supporting their relocation. You are putting money in their pockets and boosting the most important PR factor, the gate. The more people who go, the more it helps them economically and politically. You can say-and they can say-as often as you like that "SISU can meet the shortfall". I think that's bullshit: it's costing them more money, and it's hurting them in terms of PR. Why else would we suddenly have JS deigning to grant us an interview?

You are of course correct that the most important aspect of not going is to register disgust at the relocation against fans wishes. The interview by JS is meant to be seen as some kind of olive branch and justification for their actions, but frankly it's just made me even more hostile to them.

chiefdave · Sep 26, 2013

theferret said:
There is a huge market in this city for business/conference facilities and there is no reason why we could not get a share of that market.

That's all well and good but the new stadium isn't going to be in the city. Not knowing the location it may be the case there is a catchment area for that market sector but equally we may be in an area where we will struggle to attract any such business.

theferret said:
Don't Walsall make over £1 million from their Sunday market alone?

No idea what the Sunday market makes but again location could prove an issue here.

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
By going you are supporting their relocation. You are putting money in their pockets and boosting the most important PR factor, the gate. The more people who go, the more it helps them economically and politically.

Only because the discourse has been positioned that way.

If we'd had a more open minded view, it could still have been pointed out that the very maximum we can get locks out near 30% of last season's average attendance, locks out 66% of McGinnity's break even figure, and locks out 75% plus of those who watched us play Crewe.

Instead, we go for the lazy option, because it suits a perverse agenda to berate other fans and split fan against fan, doing a finer job with bad economics, and to demand a scapegoat that is our fellow fans because of guilt that it may actually be us causing the damage, and thus causing a far more serious split amongst us than anything our owners do or have done.

duffer · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
I do oppose fully the principles of NOPM, yes, in terms of not giving them cash will get them back quicker. That's nonsense in my view, all it does is make it more likely the club does not exist quicker.

I can accept the not wanting to go to Sixfields because disenfranchised fro the club; having been disenfranchised from the club for a while now, I haven't contributed them any cash in ticket sales myself.

However, to say that by going you're killing the club is, frankly, nonsense and stands up in no financial logic whatsoever. In fact you, me, whoever doesn't go is more likely to be killing the club!

By going, you won't be driving the club to stay away from the city by the act of going. You may, in fact, be giving it a chance of returning.

That's a totally different view to feeling disenfranchised and not wanting to go because of that. I'm comfortable in the fact that if anybody's killing the club among fans, it's more likely to be the likes of me, who is not going.

I beg to differ. NOPM has to be hurting SISU, and the longer it goes on the more pressure they will feel.

If or when SISU decide to leave, they're not going to liquidate the football club unless that makes the best financial sense. If there's an offer to buy them out, even if it's only for a few million, why would they turn it down if it makes them more than a simple liquidation?

skybluelee · Sep 26, 2013

Of course it doesn't stack up. That's why it is so frustrating that the FL have done nothing to stop it. And it smacks of desparation that Sepalla has now crawled out of her hole to try and get supporters on side. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Shitfields crowds are significantly down on Fisher's lowest estimate and they are panicking...

Stay firm ACL, don't give in to these scumbags.

NOPM
PUSB

theferret · Sep 26, 2013

skybluelee said:
Of course it doesn't stack up. That's why it is so frustrating that the FL have done nothing to stop it. And it smacks of desparation that Sepalla has now crawled out of her hole to try and get supporters on side. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Shitfields crowds are significantly down on Fisher's lowest estimate and they are panicking...

Stay firm ACL, don't give in to these scumbags.

NOPM
PUSB

"Stay firm ACL". Just about sums up the warped agenda of the majority of our fans.

dongonzalos · Sep 26, 2013

duffer said:
I beg to differ. NOPM has to be hurting SISU, and the longer it goes on the more pressure they will feel.

If or when SISU decide to leave, they're not going to liquidate the football club unless that makes the best financial sense. If there's an offer to buy them out, even if it's only for a few million, why would they turn it down if it makes them more than a simple liquidation?

It has to be hurting SISU remember they were originally trying to get Walsall for the ground share. It had an 11k capacity.

They completely under estimated the impact of taking the club out of Coventry.

They are playing some of the most exciting football for the last 10 years. Yet attendances are still under 2 k.

This has to be linked to Ms Seppela's charm offensive. Speaking directly to the fans for the first time since buying the club!

If this continues over 5 years it will cost them at least 10 million in ticket sales alone.

This makes the council think that SISU's new stadium plan is unfeasible and they are less likely to believe the bluff.

Ms Seppala needs to the fans to make her bluff of a new stadium look the slightest bit economically viable

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

duffer said:
I beg to differ. NOPM has to be hurting SISU, and the longer it goes on the more pressure they will feel.

If or when SISU decide to leave, they're not going to liquidate the football club unless that makes the best financial sense. If there's an offer to buy them out, even if it's only for a few million, why would they turn it down if it makes them more than a simple liquidation?

If you don't believe liquidation of the club isnt a very real option, then that's highly naive. It's a straightforward financial fact that if the club has no income, and nobody prepared to cover its losses, then it has no option but to cease to exist.

Also you're not setting it in a wider context. For the sake of their investment portfolio as a whole, having said the future of the club is at risk from not a thousand cuts, but three or four (as Fisher said) then it could well be financially better off as a whole to wind the club up...

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
If you don't believe liquidation of the club isnt a very real option, then that's highly naive. It's a straightforward financial fact that if the club has no income, and nobody prepared to cover its losses, then it has no option but to cease to exist.

Also you're not setting it in a wider context. For the sake of their investment portfolio as a whole, having said the future of the club is at risk from not a thousand cuts, but three or four (as Fisher said) then it could well be financially better off as a whole to wind the club up...

There would always be someone willing to take the club as the previous (stitch-up) administration showed and the FL would not allow us to entirely go out of existence in such a scenario.

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
There would always be someone willing to take the club as the previous (stitch-up) administration showed and the FL would not allow us to entirely go out of existence in such a scenario.

I'd be willing to take the club.

I'd bet liquidation would be a preferable option.

The league can't force a sale of an insolvent company to somebody. if they could, then Aldershot, Maidstone would have been allowed to carry on in the league, rather than re-form down the pyramid.

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
I'd be willing to take the club.

I'd bet liquidation would be a preferable option.

The league can't force a sale of an insolvent company to somebody. if they could, then Aldershot, Maidstone would have been allowed to carry on in the league, rather than re-form down the pyramid.

Preferable option to who, SISU? I do think that they'd force a sale against SISU's wishes if the alternative was us going out of existence.

But I'd take the Aldershot etc scenario ultimately if it came to that. I get the feeling that a Phoenix Club is probably the ultimate end scenario any way, it just depends on how long it takes SISU to finish fucking us to death.

Astute · Sep 26, 2013

theferret said:
"Stay firm ACL". Just about sums up the warped agenda of the majority of our fans.

Maybe the majority of the fans have weighed up a new build outside of Coventry or the Ricoh and know what makes the most sense. But as we all know Joy wants the Ricoh. The problem is how much she is willing to pay.

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
But I'd take the Aldershot etc scenario ultimately if it came to that.

So would I, the club has been a basket case for years.

hence why I'm disenfranchised(!)

However if (IF! YES I KNOW IF!) somehow all this were genuine, I could buy into it as it would be trying to turn the club from basket case into... leather attache case?

I'd suggest the destruction of the club is most likely(!) but one way or another, at least we're moving away from the steady drip drip chinese water torture into a scenario of death or life.

And while painful now, that might ultimately be for the best.

hill83 · Sep 26, 2013

theferret said:
"Stay firm ACL". Just about sums up the warped agenda of the majority of our fans.

It's still not the majority, unless someone can find facts to suggest otherwise. There was barely a couple of small Sisu out songs at Port Vale, and a load of 'take me home' songs. Get us back to the Ricoh, regardless of how and regardless of who owns us and we will be laughing.

Try getting a 'Stay firm ACL' song going in the real world and you'll have your felt tip knocked out of your hand and get laughed at.

chiefdave · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
However if (IF! YES I KNOW IF!) somehow all this were genuine, I could buy into it as it would be trying to turn the club from basket case into... leather attache case?

This is it isn't it. If there was any sign that this was a genuine attempt to try and turn things around and leave us better I think the majority of supporters would get behind it but there just doesn't seem to be a case that this is a way forward that's going to do anything but damage.

RoboCCFC90 · Sep 26, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
This has been said lots of times before, but what the heck.

By going you are supporting their relocation. You are putting money in their pockets and boosting the most important PR factor, the gate. The more people who go, the more it helps them economically and politically. You can say-and they can say-as often as you like that "SISU can meet the shortfall". I think that's bullshit: it's costing them more money, and it's hurting them in terms of PR. Why else would we suddenly have JS deigning to grant us an interview?

You are of course correct that the most important aspect of not going is to register disgust at the relocation against fans wishes. The interview by JS is meant to be seen as some kind of olive branch and justification for their actions, but frankly it's just made me even more hostile to them.

What a load of horse s***!!!

There is no evidence to support that SISU want to move us permnamently to Northampton..

Hobo · Sep 26, 2013

These much needed revenue streams; are they for CCFC or SISU?

duffer · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
If you don't believe liquidation of the club isnt a very real option, then that's highly naive. It's a straightforward financial fact that if the club has no income, and nobody prepared to cover its losses, then it has no option but to cease to exist.

Also you're not setting it in a wider context. For the sake of their investment portfolio as a whole, having said the future of the club is at risk from not a thousand cuts, but three or four (as Fisher said) then it could well be financially better off as a whole to wind the club up...

Naive is a bit of a cheap shot. I could just as well say that you're being naive or overly emotional for saying that a business interested only in the bottom line would wind the club up rather than sell.

We've seen there are interested parties.

In what way would liquidating the club rather than selling it benefit SISU's investors?

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 26, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
What a load of horse s***!!!

There is no evidence to support that SISU want to move us permnamently to Northampton..

Oh, eat your own horse shit-where did I say permanently? We're there now, aren't we? How long are we going to be there? Nobody knows. So that's indefinite, which is almost as bad as permanent!

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

duffer said:
In what way would liquidating the club rather than selling it benefit SISU's investors?

See previous answers!

Oh, and I didn't mean naive as a cheap shot either btw, so can we kiss and make up? I actually spent ages doing my best to neutralise it

The financial arguement for a new ground (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency