lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58;859287 Final thought about the Wasps financial plans. Would you base your financial plans and future on ground sharing with a delinquent tenant with poor financial & legal history said:
oldskyblue58;859287 Final thought about the Wasps financial plans. Would you base your financial plans and future on ground sharing with a delinquent tenant with poor financial & legal history said:Is that Wasps or us?
Haven't the council said Wasps presented various plans including some with no football income? What exactly is the football club worth to ACL now? Rent of 100k + some matchday income. Hardly huge amounts.Is that Wasps or us?
Haven't the council said Wasps presented various plans including some with no football income? What exactly is the football club worth to ACL now? Rent of 100k + some matchday income. Hardly huge amounts.
Haven't the council said Wasps presented various plans including some with no football income? What exactly is the football club worth to ACL now? Rent of 100k + some matchday income. Hardly huge amounts.
Rent £100,000 (this offsets or contributes to the stadium bowl up keep)
F&B £8400 x21 x 90% = £158760 (if CCFC get 10% of turnover then that figure is 141k, but what if TF was wrong and it was more like 15% margin? )
Car parking £5 x 21 x 1500 = 157500
there isn't much else they earn from CCFC
Value of CCFC to ACL turnover 845k and to profits this financial year 416k. (all guess work of course). The point I am making is yes there might well be profits from CCFC but not very big ones and that puts CCFC at risk if the crowds reduce further and further. Because you get to a minimum staffing for the stadium for example the costs do not necessarily reduce at the same rate. Wasps might think they are losing not gaining by the deal
I think a problem with this topic is too many people want a binary choice, either SISU bad or CCC bad. Lots of lip service is paid to 'blame on both sides' but that doesn't really come through in the discussion. Add in that many people seem to want a simple answer, the proverbial 'smoking gun' that can be the answer to everything either through it's existence and lack of it. The situation, from both sides, is a lot more nuanced than that hence when people dig their heels in we just end up going round in circles.
In my opinion there is enough doubt surrounding the council to warrant investigation. This is not to say that the sale is illegal. I could give my house away for nothing, wouldn't be illegal but people would also question my judgement, even more so if the house was paid for with other peoples money, to make a not particularly brilliant analogy. The questions that I would like answer are more around the process of the sale and misleading information that was given.
For example, and this is just off the top of my head, Lucas' claim that ACL was profitable whilst we were in Sixfields. This has now been shown to be false and even admitted to by Lucas but she blamed council officers, presumably Reeves and West, for not giving her the correct information. Were they deliberatly giving false information, if so for who's benefit? If it was a mistake has other information been checked since to locate any other similar instances? Were any decisions, either granting the loan or authorising the sale, both voted for by councillors, made on this basis of this incorrect information? Things like that, none of that would make the sale illegal in any way but, depending on the answers, could leave some big questions for the council to answer. And to me the single most important question, was the same deal offered to us?
It's similar to the situation when we were put into admin, most people were of the belief that while SISU were operating on the edge of legality they were being careful to ensure their actions were legal. Didn't mean that we wouldn't have wanted a thorough investigation into why and when assets were moved around and what exactly had gone on.
Instead all we got was a tick box exercise by Appleton and it sounds like this will be very similar.
From another thread:
So in a 'normal season' some £1m in turnover and half in profit.
I would say that is a 'conservative' guesstimate.
And as Wasps and ACL seem to be struggling ANY penny we contribute counts.
Your single most important question is a bit pointless though. Tim Fisher has already said the club could not do the wasps deal.
If Wasps can get by with or without our contributions. We may end up waiting a few years doing nothing but trying to break even whilst we wait to see if wasps can survive
ACL were struggling without a tenant in the ground. I guess we don't really know if they are struggling now.
Wasps were struggling at Adams Park again we are unsure now.
However the last bit is the bit that worries me.
If Wasps can get by with or without our contributions. We may end up waiting a few years doing nothing but trying to break even whilst we wait to see if wasps can survive
That again raises the issue that people will believe Fisher when it suits. In my opinion there is no way Fisher would admit he would have taken that deal after the fact.
Would SISU have turned it down, maybe, we don't know. But for me there should have been an open and transparent sale process where everyone knew what was available and anyone could make bids - to give an example similar to Birmingham Council's sale of the NEC. Had that happened we could have all concentrated our efforts on getting SISU to make the bid.
But you keep bringing up that line about people believing Fisher when it suits, when surely rather than look at whether he is lying, just look at history.
That again raises the issue that people will believe Fisher when it suits. In my opinion there is no way Fisher would admit he would have taken that deal after the fact.
Would SISU have turned it down, maybe, we don't know. But for me there should have been an open and transparent sale process where everyone knew what was available and anyone could make bids - to give an example similar to Birmingham Council's sale of the NEC. Had that happened we could have all concentrated our efforts on getting SISU to make the bid.
For me it is not a matter of disbelieving everything he says, it is listening to it and then matching to what we do know.
I think that a deal in the terms that were offered to Wasps was undoable for CCFC/SISU. Fisher was probably correct that such a deal wouldn't be good for CCFC because they could not afford it. For instance it would mean a cashflow payment of 1.6m pa for 20 years just to pay the CCC loan to ACL. I do not think that the way CCFC is now that a combined CCFC/ACL group could do that especially if independent of the owners. Not to mention the additional borrowing and interest to pay the 5.54m purchase fee. The spin he put on it was to imply that the deal could see Wasps go bust (yes it may have been about a partnership) but the further implication is that ACL is not viable, to be honest he is hardly going to say CCFC or SISU cant afford it though is he. A feature of this saga is that it is always someone elses fault as far as the major players are concerned (CCC/SISU)
In a perfect world yes the deal would have been totally transparent. But are CCC required to put it out for tender legally, are they duty bound to offer a deal of any kind to anyone? Are they legally required to offer it to CCFC? Because we are talking about compliance with the law really aren't we?
Morally the whole situation feels very wrong I agree but to get an inquiry is going to need some evidence of some kind that CCC powers/regulation or related law was broken - is there any? Seem to remember there were secret meetings going on between CCC & SISU that the Charity were not involved in seems it isn't a new occurrence.
But wasn't the whole dispute at least in part about getting CCFC to bid rather than sue? to be involved not an adversary?
An inquiry needs to be specific. So what are the specific questions that need to be asked? I know you have listed some before as has duffer
For me it is not a matter of disbelieving everything he says, it is listening to it and then matching to what we do know.
I think that a deal in the terms that were offered to Wasps was undoable for CCFC/SISU. Fisher was probably correct that such a deal wouldn't be good for CCFC because they could not afford it. For instance it would mean a cashflow payment of 1.6m pa for 20 years just to pay the CCC loan to ACL. I do not think that the way CCFC is now that a combined CCFC/ACL group could do that especially if independent of the owners. Not to mention the additional borrowing and interest to pay the 5.54m purchase fee. The spin he put on it was to imply that the deal could see Wasps go bust (yes it may have been about a partnership) but the further implication is that ACL is not viable, to be honest he is hardly going to say CCFC or SISU cant afford it though is he. A feature of this saga is that it is always someone elses fault as far as the major players are concerned (CCC/SISU)
In a perfect world yes the deal would have been totally transparent. But are CCC required to put it out for tender legally, are they duty bound to offer a deal of any kind to anyone? Are they legally required to offer it to CCFC? Because we are talking about compliance with the law really aren't we?
Morally the whole situation feels very wrong I agree but to get an inquiry is going to need some evidence of some kind that CCC powers/regulation or related law was broken or abused - is there any? Seem to remember there were secret meetings going on between CCC & SISU that the Charity were not involved in seems it isn't a new occurrence.
But wasn't the whole dispute at least in part about getting CCFC to bid ? to be involved not an adversary?
An inquiry needs to be specific. So what are the specific questions that need to be asked? I know you have listed some before as has duffer
have you ever posted about football?
have you ever posted about football?
Have you ever posted anything worthwhile? He's one of the most informative and knowledgeable people on the site.
I think the quote was primarily aimed at a Wasps/CCFC partnership NW.
Final thought about the Wasps financial plans. Would you base your financial plans and future on ground sharing with a delinquent tenant with poor financial & legal history, that is descending and massively over burdened by debt and financial charges - I know I wouldnt
Especially when said tenant's rent deal is so low and therefore immaterial in the scheme of things.
£100k less expenses, difficult to imagine it being crucial.
Yet we've been advised f+b turnover of £1M only ever generated profit of £100K previouslyRead post #109 in this thread.
According to OSB ACL will increase turnover by some £800t and profit some £400t this season. More in a full season - even more if we get some nice cup games.
The club's contribution is not insignificant.
Read post #109 in this thread.
According to OSB ACL will increase turnover by some £800t and profit some £400t this season. More in a full season - even more if we get some nice cup games.
The club's contribution is not insignificant.
Yet we've been advised f+b turnover of £1M only ever generated profit of £100K previously
Isn't this one of the ancient quotes from back in early 2012? I seem to remember it was Fischer trying to paint the picture of a poorly managed ACL.
I am not sure if this is the case after Compass/ACL joint venture was formed.
IEC Experience made a loss of £265k in the year to 31.5.14.
What was the gross margin?
I am sure the overall loss was due to lower revenue.
Compared to the year before sales were down £450k, GP margin was a fraction up 57.9% compared to 57.2%, loss was exactly the same, to the £, in each year.
That again raises the issue that people will believe Fisher when it suits. In my opinion there is no way Fisher would admit he would have taken that deal after the fact.
Would SISU have turned it down, maybe, we don't know. But for me there should have been an open and transparent sale process where everyone knew what was available and anyone could make bids - to give an example similar to Birmingham Council's sale of the NEC. Had that happened we could have all concentrated our efforts on getting SISU to make the bid.
So SISU could not do that deal as it destroyed their JR argument.
surely not. we have been told that these proceedings are unfortunate but necessary on behalf of the taxpayers .I would suggest there is a strong likelihood that in the event of SISU obtaining ownership of the Ricoh the legal action would cease.
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?