skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't Mr Appleton re-run the admin process when ACL requested it? Surely he must have been working for them if we went into administration for a debt to ACL?
Last edited:
No, that was when sisu couldn't/wouldn't pay ACL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Do you think our long term future (say 15-20 years time) is playing in a wasps owned stadium containing yellow and black seats and WASPS RFC written in the seats?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Look, I used the figures as an example - it was not the final figures from Fishers calculations. Why try ridiculing the numbers when the concept is the essential part?
The stadium cannot be the only business there, so the land spot must be large enough to house additional buildings. That also means there are more than the club to share the lease costs. It also means there will be more business for the stadium management company and more FFP/SMCP bonus for the club.
Well the colour of the seats isn't really critical to the future of the club. Just over 2 years ago Mark Robins was moaning about Sky Blue seats and half the posters on here were calling for a seat colour change.
What I am absolutely certain of though, is doing the wrong thing is far worse than doing nothing. And being dependent on a small stadium construction to cover CCFC losses, as well as its own construction costs is just going to end in disaster.
The topic always gets steered this way and it's just not relevant to whether or not a new stadium is a viable proposition. Even if the current situation isn't viable that doesn't increase the viability of an obviously significantly worse option it just means we are screwed.
The numbers are key to the concept.
Are you now suggesting in your theoretical scenario that the club will own the management company and will be responsible for the loan repayments?
I don't mean to have a go at people, but it reads like desperation - you want it work.
I don't think we have a long term future without fresh investors in the club. SISU have done their bollocks and have yet to find a way out. The stadium talk is just crap. No-one has made a case on this thread. Just inventing figures and scenarios. I don't mean to have a go at people, but it reads like desperation - you want it work. Understandable, but cloud cuckoo land I think. One day we may yet end up in the same group as Wasps. The stadium is already there. They seem to making a success of it ( early days though ). No point renting off them long term, but maybe buying in or being bought in. Who knows, but I don't think we will be seeing a new stadium near Cov..
I don't think we have a long term future without fresh investors in the club. SISU have done their bollocks and have yet to find a way out. The stadium talk is just crap. No-one has made a case on this thread. Just inventing figures and scenarios. I don't mean to have a go at people, but it reads like desperation - you want it work. Understandable, but cloud cuckoo land I think. One day we may yet end up in the same group as Wasps. The stadium is already there. They seem to making a success of it ( early days though ). No point renting off them long term, but maybe buying in or being bought in. Who knows, but I don't think we will be seeing a new stadium near Cov..
Bristol City are redeveloping 3 stands for £45m.
then the white knight flashes the cashBristol City chairman delivers verdict on £11.8million loss
By This is Bristol | Posted: November 04, 2010
BRISTOL City were today counting the cost of Championship football after announcing club record losses of £11.8million for the last financial year.
Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/CITY-FINANCES-MESS/story-11288073-detail/story.html#ixzz3WhcIzEhk
Follow us: @BristolPost on Twitter | bristolpost on Facebook
Chairman Steve Lansdown insisted the latest loss is sustainable, but admitted the club's current balance sheet is "a mess."
Steve Lansdown wipes out £35 million of debt at Bristol City
BRISTOL City majority shareholder Steve Lansdown has wiped out £35 million of football club debt at a stroke.
Faced by a deficit of £12.9 million for the year ending May 31 2013 and overall debts of £55 million, City's owner has taken drastic action to stabilise the League One club's finances.
Who ever own the club have to go to Wasps and try to buy in to ACL.The only benefit all the income from the activities at the stadium means is they could pay the loan back quicker. It gives them no additional spend on the pitch as their is in place a salary cap for the foreseeable future. It's the sensible thing to do and will cost a lot less than building a new ground. Sisu are desperate to survive in this league for some reason, I genuinely believe that something is going to happen in the closed season we may be closer to the end game then we all think.
We won't have a good long term future without new owners, but we also have no future as long term tenants in someone else's stadium.
We won't be bought out by wasps, it just isn't going to happen.
Wasps aren't going to want to sell shares in ACL and access to the revenues they need to be self sustainable and compete at the top of Europe rugby.
And whilst no one has put forward figures to support sisu, no ones really put a case against it, because it's all on the bag of a fag packet uninformed, finger in the air made up figures regardless. Until we see a proper business case we can't say either way.
Who ever own the club have to go to Wasps and try to buy in to ACL.The only benefit all the income from the activities at the stadium means is they could pay the loan back quicker. It gives them no additional spend on the pitch as their is in place a salary cap for the foreseeable future. It's the sensible thing to do and will cost a lot less than building a new ground. Sisu are desperate to survive in this league for some reason, I genuinely believe that something is going to happen in the closed season we may be closer to the end game then we all think.
Why wouldn't Mr Appleton re-run the admin process when ACL requested it? Surely he must have been working for them if we went into administration for a debt to ACL?
A Wasps/CCFC (New Owner) Ricoh in the championship would provide much more profit for wasps to be self sustainable and compete at the top of Europe rugby than them competing against a new ccfc stadium (not that it's happening)
Who really cares about what Wasps need to be self sustainable though? So we get promoted and get loads of fans in to help Wasps be sustainable? I'd much rather CCFC were self sustainable before anybody else.
Who really cares about what Wasps need to be self sustainable though? So we get promoted and get loads of fans in to help Wasps be sustainable? I'd much rather CCFC were self sustainable before anybody else.
It will be because I saw it posted on twitter by a SBT committee member. As you are so certain about peoples motives can you tell me what his angle is?
By the way what is your angle, you as always post a defence of anything that makes SISU look bad? (in this case an indirect defence to deflect discussion away from the topic of the blog which is ARVO/SISU/CCFC ownership).
Who really cares about what Wasps need to be self sustainable though? So we get promoted and get loads of fans in to help Wasps be sustainable? I'd much rather CCFC were self sustainable before anybody else.
I don't think it would anyway. If there was a 50% ACL partnership, wasps would keep all of their revenue, we would keep all of our revenue, then the additional revenues would be split. I believe this is what happens with Swansea and Ospreys. You'd have to share stand sponsorship, stadium sponsorship, but the rest would be unique to each other.
And what costs would be shared? Ticketing (maybe?), shop (it was barely big enough to fit ccfc stuff in, so won't be big enough for both, plus loss of identity?)
All over stuff would either remain in ACL, wasps, ccfc.
I fail to see other than a lump sum, how it would increase wasps profits.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Stadium sponsorship and stand sponsorship would be much higher for a premiership rugby/championship football club than just premiership rugby. The number of home games there is basically tripled over just having the rugby club there, this affects the viability of both business they can set up themselves like a sports bar and the viability of all the buisness's on the Ricoh land, restaurants, shops, casino etc, the amount of money the leases/rent etc that these bring into acl are going to be very heavily dependent on the amount of fans that visit. There are huge amount of costs that are shared, maintenance, business rates etc while certain costs go up overall the total company becomes much more efficient.
Then there is the fact that selling half to us prevents both us leaving and us becoming a competitor for concerts/events (unfortunately the fact that I'm sure they don't believe we are going to build a new stadium lowers this value)
I find it completely bizarre that so many people seem to be able to hold two such conflicting opinions that a)ACL under wasps isn't viable especially if we leave and b) they won't sell any of ACL to us because they want to keep this revenue to themselves, completely ignoring the fact that revenue really isn't at all relevant it's all about profit and if they believe a then there is no profit.
Of course revenue is important... salary cap in Rugby and SCMP in football is based on revenue.
Not necessarily. 1) that's presuming they have already maximised their wage bill, and 2) you can have 2 'star' players outside of the cap of which they can pay what the want to,' and 3) there seems to be pressure to scrap the wage cap, at the very least there will likely be a year on year increase of it I suspect.
Then there's the fact that they wasps were losing £3m per annum (again we don't know if they are maximising their wage bill), and ACL were losing £400k. So there's a funding gap - we won't know whether that will be bridged until 2-3 years down the line and crowds settle.
Then there's the costs of moving, buying land and building academy and training facilities in/around Coventry, so there's plenty for wasps to be spending money on above paying the loan off.
Unless wasps struggle financially, o see no reason why they will sell 50% to ccfc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I know exactly how it works thanks, you though don't appear too. Rugby Salary cap is a fixed figure and scmp has so many holes in it to be irrelevant really, but even if it didn't owning half of acl would provide more revenue than the club wanted to spend on players.
Nick Eastwood said when purchasing the Ricoh it was the increase in revenues that were of the utmost importance - not profit.
50% share of matchday revenues (F&B + parking)
It doesn't really matter what he said, it's profit they want and need. He couldn't really use the word profit though because there wasn't currently any. He obviously believed with them there he could turn revenue into profit.
Nick Eastwood said when purchasing the Ricoh it was the increase in revenues that were of the utmost importance - not profit.
It doesn't really matter what he said, it's profit they want and need. He couldn't really use the word profit though because there wasn't currently any. He obviously believed with them there he could turn revenue into profit.
You've already answered the premiss of my post. If their is a funding gap and you are loosing money and can't spend more on the pitch why wouldn't you take on a partner to ease your financial burden and knock a big hole in your endebtidness?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?