Well said Richard Keogh - respect (2 Viewers)

[Nick]

What about turning down the original 3 year run off period?

 

---

[Ian1779]

Stop this. It could have been agreed; but just outside thee auspices of the administration process.

And the CVA rejection has been discussed a million and one times. Surely not again, FFS

And these 'rental' deals haven't. You don't want to discuss the rejected CVA becuase you know there isn't a single justified reason to this day for it to have happened.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Essentially strangling the life out the home town football club... all long before any of us had even heard of SISU.

Again man, rubbish. Even at the preposterously high level, it was circa. 10% of turnover. The judge just said exactly the same. That leaves 90% to run a business with. Yes, too high. Strangling the club? Do me a favour. Is it National Hyperbole Day?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

And these 'rental' deals haven't. You don't want to discuss the rejected CVA becuase you know there isn't a single justified reason to this day for it to have happened.

No. It's because it's been discussed a million and one times and I've got a life to lead that doesn't encourage me to add to that number by one more

 

[Ian1779]

Again man, rubbish. Even at the preposterously high level, it was less than 10% of turnover. The judge just said exactly the same. That leaves 90% to run a business with. Yes, too high. Strangling the club? Do me a favour. Is it National Hyperbole Day?

10% of ACL's turnover.... not 10% of the club's total revenue though was it? What was the break even figure for the club on the deal 22K a game?

 

[Jack Griffin]

Again man, rubbish. Even at the preposterously high level, it was less than 10% of turnover. The judge just said exactly the same. That leaves 90% to run a business with. Yes, too high. Strangling the club? Do me a favour. Is it National Hyperbole Day?

National bare faced lie day?

 

[skybluetony176]

Fact One - the rent deal did return to that after 3 years unless an agreed compromise was reached

Fact Two - this deal had no revenues and no budging on sponsorship and other revenues despite the clubs return immediately improving the management companies asset value. Offering that deal to a new tenant would result in being rejected.

I love "fact" 2, the old, I know what everyone in the world would do "fact".

 

[Jack Griffin]

How do you know? You're only seeing what's reported and like me have no idea what's said behind closed doors.

Think Keogh might just have some idea, having played for us and dealt with the owners!

Did he lead the negotiations in between training session in your surreal world?

 

[Ian1779]

No. It's because it's been discussed a million and one times and I've got a life to lead that doesn't encourage me to add to that number by one more

Fine... no reason for you to mention the 'rental deals' and everything else.. we've discussed it a million times previously.

Maybe we'll be able to stop hearing the 'SISU batter people in court' tagline as that must have been used at least 5 million times.

 

[Kingokings204]

Fact One - the rent deal did return to that after 3 years unless an agreed compromise was reached

Fact Two - this deal had no revenues and no budging on sponsorship and other revenues despite the clubs return immediately improving the management companies asset value. Offering that deal to a new tenant would result in being rejected.

Fact 1 - the rent deal was to go back for arguments sake to 1.3 but in principal it would be "market rate" well below 1.3m you should know.

Fact 2 - Of course it had no revenues as it was a 90% reduction on the rent. Is that not moving an inch?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

10% of ACL's turnover.... not 10% of the club's total revenue though was it? What was the break even figure for the club on the deal 22K a game?

CCFC turnover 2012 £10.8m. Rent (again, too high, £1.3m). I can't be bothered to go back and list previous years, but yes - circa. 10%

We all waited for Judicial Review. The smoking gun. Maybe many smoking guns? It didn't happen. Indeed the judge commented on how poorly the football cub had been run. So....

.... we just go back to the same old tired debates......

 

[Kingokings204]

At least one deal was offered to the administrator, in the full knowledge that the club couldn't accept it.

Secondly.. if everything was to 'keep Coventry City in Coventry' then why the CVA rejection? Had that not occurred I believe we would have been back some time ago.

The CVA was rejected for many reasons all stated a million times and if you actually believe if acl would have accepted the cva we would be at the ricoh "some time ago" you really are naïve or struggling to come to terms with the judges verdict.

Sisu were intent on not paying the rent and distressing ACL. The decision to move out of Coventry was taken long before any CVA and nothing would of stopped it let alone the CVA. The only way sisu would of stayed is by giving them ACL for free and nothing else.

 

[Kingokings204]

CCFC turnover 2012 £10.8m. Rent (again, too high, £1.3m). I can't be bothered to go back and list previous years, but yes - circa. 10%

We all waited for Judicial Review. The smoking gun. Maybe many smoking guns? It didn't happen. Indeed the judge commented on hos poorly the football cub had been run. So....

.... we just go back to the same old tired debates......

They will finally understand one day. I live in hope. Its just basic business and figures that you don't have to be Peter Jones to understand.

 

[Ian1779]

CCFC turnover 2012 £10.8m. Rent (again, too high, £1.3m). I can't be bothered to go back and list previous years, but yes - circa. 10%

We all waited for Judicial Review. The smoking gun. Maybe many smoking guns? It didn't happen. Indeed the judge commented on hos poorly the football cub had been run. So....

.... we just go back to the same old tired debates......

But when you rely on player sales as the vast majority of your income we are never going to build a successful team. If the club had to have a 22K attendance for every game just to not make a loss on matchday then you can see so much of what is wrong... and it's not just the rent... but also revenue streams.

So yes you have found one year example that does fit that argument. But relying on ticket sales and sponsorship alone (the only other revenue streams we had) then what is the rental % then? 30%? 40%?

 

[Kingokings204]

But when you rely on player sales as the vast majority of your income we are never going to build a successful team. If the club had to have a 22K attendance for every game just to not make a loss on matchday then you can see so much of what is wrong... and it's not just the rent... but also revenue streams.

Yes we all agree Ian including ACL. things were changing. rent was shook on at 400k remember by TF so he saw nothing wrong with that.

Why did Sisu turn down 150k for 10 years last year then?


Why did Sisu turn down 150k for 10 years last year then? a 90% reduction in rent. Wouldn't of needed 22k then im sure.

 

[Ian1779]

Yes we all agree Ian including ACL. things were changing. rent was shook on at 400k remember by TF so he saw nothing wrong with that.

Why did Sisu turn down 150k for 10 years last year then?

Can only imagine because they got zero matchday revenue as before. Although there is a saving on rent - if you sign up to that deal you are just recreating the same problem as before. No other revenue streams = more equity injection.

The club is not going to get itself to be self sufficient with continued reliance on someone to pump money because it can't generate it's own money. If people are happy for all that money to go to ACL that's fine... but we'll get the same as we have now, reliance on a paymaster.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Derailing in progress.

 

[The Gentleman]

Fact One - the rent deal did return to that after 3 years unless an agreed compromise was reached

Fact Two - this deal had no revenues and no budging on sponsorship and other revenues despite the clubs return immediately improving the management companies asset value. Offering that deal to a new tenant would result in being rejected.

Why is fact 2 relevant to us. We are not and wouldn't be a new tenant and to compare 10 years at the Ricoh and possibly 10 years at Sixfields under the current terms is a no brainer so it is a FACT that the club should have accepted the deal.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

But when you rely on player sales as the vast majority of your income we are never going to build a successful team. If the club had to have a 22K attendance for every game just to not make a loss on matchday then you can see so much of what is wrong... and it's not just the rent... but also revenue streams.

So yes you have found one year example that does fit that argument. But relying on ticket sales and sponsorship alone (the only other revenue streams we had) then what is the rental % then? 30%? 40%?

You can't have things all your own way. How many times do we hear the line 'We're a Championship/League One club, we have to sell'; and then exclude player sales and their income from your business model? Crewe have built a club on it; and it's frankly preposterous to claim otherwise. I could look at other years. I simply can't be bothered; and frankly even if I did have the inclination, I fear I'd be wasting my time with you

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Derailing in progress.

Agreed. I can't take any more. It's almost like the Judicial Review, and all the comments associated therewith didn't happen.....

 

[fernandopartridge]

Again man, rubbish. Even at the preposterously high level, it was circa. 10% of turnover. The judge just said exactly the same. That leaves 90% to run a business with. Yes, too high. Strangling the club? Do me a favour. Is it National Hyperbole Day?

Turnover is irrelevant to the point that the rental deal was too high. It is only relevant to the general point about the club's management.

 

[Kingokings204]

Can only imagine because they got zero matchday revenue as before. Although there is a saving on rent - if you sign up to that deal you are just recreating the same problem as before. No other revenue streams = more equity injection.

The club is not going to get itself to be self sufficient with continued reliance on someone to pump money because it can't generate it's own money. If people are happy for all that money to go to ACL that's fine... but we'll get the same as we have now, reliance on a paymaster.

I agree with some of that yes but 2 questions for you?

1. Surely a rent reduction of 90% outweighs rights of match day income which we know to be worth not as much even though you have the same problem?

2. Why did TF and ML shake on 400k in January 2013 if 150k wasn't good enough?

The point is sisu were always going to move out of the Ricoh regardless and that's clear as day. Also ccfc sold the rights for matchday income to Higgs and will only get them back in 1 of 2 ways, either paying for them or building a new stadium. Building a stadium will never never never happen so they have to buy them back and sisu know this but they tried (unsuccessfully) to get them on the absolute mega cheap to sell on at a massive profit.

 

[Ian1779]

You can't have things all your own way. How many times do we hear the line 'We're a Championship/League One club, we have to sell'; and then exclude player sales and their income from your business model? Crewe have built a club on it; and it's frankly preposterous to claim otherwise. I could look at other years. I simply can't be bothered; and frankly even if I did have the inclination, I fear I'd be wasting my time with you

I'm not sure how that is relevant really.. most clubs are selling clubs when a club from a higher league comes to take your best players.

I'm not saying to exclude it from a business model, but frankly you seem happy to ignore the fact the rental value as a proportion of the revenue the club can generate from ticket sales and sponsorship is ridiculously high. How will that ever create a model where the club can stand on it's own two feet?

But as long as you're happy that everytime you went to a football match at the Ricoh any other money you spent went to a faceless management company rather than the team you support that's fine.

 

[Kingokings204]

I'm not sure how that is relevant really.. most clubs are selling clubs when a club from a higher league comes to take your best players.

I'm not saying to exclude it from a business model, but frankly you seem happy to ignore the fact the rental value as a proportion of the revenue the club can generate from ticket sales and sponsorship is ridiculously high. How will that ever create a model where the club can stand on it's own two feet?

But as long as you're happy that everytime you went to a football match at the Ricoh any other money you spent went to a faceless management company rather than the team you support that's fine.

Its about what is fair and what is legally right and that's the way it is.

We all agree the rent was too high and revenues should go to ccfc. (never saying this again)

What level of rent is fair to you then? How much?

 

[The Gentleman]

I'm not sure how that is relevant really.. most clubs are selling clubs when a club from a higher league comes to take your best players.

I'm not saying to exclude it from a business model, but frankly you seem happy to ignore the fact the rental value as a proportion of the revenue the club can generate from ticket sales and sponsorship is ridiculously high. How will that ever create a model where the club can stand on it's own two feet?

But as long as you're happy that everytime you went to a football match at the Ricoh any other money you spent went to a faceless management company rather than the team you support that's fine.

If the club was in the PL.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

How do you know? You're only seeing what's reported and like me have no idea what's said behind closed doors.

Think Keogh might just have some idea, having played for us and dealt with the owners!

A mature response to a rather immature one IMO.

All parties have tried the finger-pointing & mud-slinging approaches with generally poor outcomes. Time to grow up if a solution is to be found.


PUSB

 

[Ian1779]

I agree with some of that yes but 2 questions for you?

1. Surely a rent reduction of 90% outweighs rights of match day income which we know to be worth not as much even though you have the same problem?

2. Why did TF and ML shake on 400k in January 2013 if 150k wasn't good enough?

The point is sisu were always going to move out of the Ricoh regardless and that's clear as day. Also ccfc sold the rights for matchday income to Higgs and will only get them back in 1 of 2 ways, either paying for them or building a new stadium. Building a stadium will never never never happen so they have to buy them back and sisu know this but they tried (unsuccessfully) to get them on the absolute mega cheap to sell on at a massive profit.

1. Maybe the net difference between the two doesn't amount to that much, but having the revenue streams to put in the 'revenue' column in the first place as opposed to just the 'outgoings' column may have something to do with it.

2. As I have said before - If the club had all matchday revenue streams as part of the deal I think it's fair as a start point. Why did Joy reject? Only she can answer that.

I think the SISU were always intending to break the lease deal.. they chose leaving the complex to do it in conjunction with the admin.

I completely agree about building a new stadium.. it's utter nonsense. The only way I ever see a way out of this is for the club to buy out and dissolve ACL.

 

[wince]

The club is not going to get itself to be self sufficient with continued reliance on someone to pump money because it can't generate it's own money. If people are happy for all that money to go to ACL that's fine... but we'll get the same as we have now, reliance on a paymaster.

---

It has been said time and time and time again ccfc sold there f/b rights and if ccfc want them back they have to buy them, it really is that simple

 

[Ian1779]

Its about what is fair and what is legally right and that's the way it is.

We all agree the rent was too high and revenues should go to ccfc. (never saying this again)

What level of rent is fair to you then? How much?

Somewhere around 200K for league 1, and more/less dependent on promotion and relegation. If we were in the PL somewhere in the region of 750K to a 1m is about right IMO. Irrespective of that all matchday revenue has to go to the football club. It's a nonsense to have it any other way.

The club now have to pay for that.. and pay the fair price to buy out ACL completely.

 

[Kingokings204]

1. Maybe the net difference between the two doesn't amount to that much, but having the revenue streams to put in the 'revenue' column in the first place as opposed to just the 'outgoings' column may have something to do with it.

2. As I have said before - If the club had all matchday revenue streams as part of the deal I think it's fair as a start point. Why did Joy reject? Only she can answer that.

I think the SISU were always intending to break the lease deal.. they chose leaving the complex to do it in conjunction with the admin.

I completely agree about building a new stadium.. it's utter nonsense. The only way I ever see a way out of this is for the club to buy out and dissolve ACL.

Yes but ACL wont dissolve that's the problem isn't it. Do you think we should be back before the season starts on a low rental short term agreement or any other suggestion?

 

[Ian1779]

Yes but ACL wont dissolve that's the problem isn't it. Do you think we should be back before the season starts on a low rental short term agreement or any other suggestion?

Sorry let me clarify... when I say dissolve I mean buy out ACL and shut it down. Take on their lease deal direct with council.

 

[Ian1779]

Yes but ACL wont dissolve that's the problem isn't it. Do you think we should be back before the season starts on a low rental short term agreement or any other suggestion?

Yes I do. A year deal to start at whatever value (maybe sixfields rent value) with full matchday revenue. Gives both parties more revenue but long term the club has to secure ACL as part of it's business.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yes I do. A year deal to start at whatever value (maybe sixfields rent value) with full matchday revenue. Gives both parties more revenue but long term the club has to secure ACL as part of it's business.

Yes. Make a like for like offer ACL. What is there to lose?

Do Compass stand in the way? Can they be engaged?

 

[Kingokings204]

Yes I do. A year deal to start at whatever value (maybe sixfields rent value) with full matchday revenue. Gives both parties more revenue but long term the club has to secure ACL as part of it's business.

Yes I think anything to get the club home as it boosts the fans and obviously money will be a lot more than at sixfields that's for sure. CCFC/SISU need to be part or be ACL going forward and this should be taken over from the council and ccfc/sisu and lets higgs go off with their money and never get involved again. F
air prices paid to all and then we can all move forward once and for all.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Fine... no reason for you to mention the 'rental deals' and everything else.. we've discussed it a million times previously. Maybe we'll be able to stop hearing the 'SISU batter people in court' tagline as that must have been used at least 5 million times.

2 points....Who's "Tagline" is it anyway?......and, How many million times have we heard "The rent is too high"...Goose and Gander comes to mind mate!