Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well no other owner would -- so there you go. You would rather we cease to exist. Unbelievable.
Why ACL's rent calculation could be justified. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter SkyBlueCharlie
- Start date
Well no other owner would -- so there you go. You would rather we cease to exist. Unbelievable.
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
When will the Sisu apologists finally understand that Sisu are responsible for the stewardship of this club, if it fails it is their failure, their business incompetence- including the handling of this issue.
5 years on and still business chaos under their stewardship.
And yet the likes of Grendel still try and point anywhere and everywhere else. Unbelievable.
5 years on and still business chaos under their stewardship.
And yet the likes of Grendel still try and point anywhere and everywhere else. Unbelievable.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Sorry this is factually wrong.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Remember CJ is not too hot on facts.
CJparker
New Member
No, I would rather we just paid the rent and were happy about it.
CJparker
New Member
Remember, Grendel is not very good with logic.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Infact the council contributed £10m page 6
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - arena construction completion report.pdf
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - arena construction completion report.pdf
CJparker
New Member
Right, so they have no right to have that repaid via the rent to ACL then?
Stupot why are you so keen to see the club screw over its creditors like this? CCFC are getting to be as bad as Pompey. I would rather see us turfed out of the Ricoh then see us strong-arm the council into a rent reduction..
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I would rather see the club accept an offer that saves £800k a year and brings in extra revenue. Tim Fisher disagrees since keeping David Bell on the wage bill makes more sense.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I do not agree with witholding the rent, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to renogotiating the rent. I can assure you sisu won't strong arm the council into anything and the council (and Higgs) will not agree anything that is not affordable.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The more we cut off, the better, surely!?
With regards to Bell, what options do we have, terminate his contract? We'd have to pay his wages in a lump sum :facepalm: I imagine we're going to sell him, like we were trying to before he got injured. It wasn't SISU's decision to renew his contract - that was AT's call. With ROD, AB signed him, transfers is under the manager's jurisdiction.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
How can you get rid of/release/sell a player who is injured and no one wants? To release him will mean financially compensating him which will be paying out the rest of his contract anyway.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
CJ why are you so keen to see the club go out of business?
CJparker
New Member
I'm not. I just don't like the tactics used with the council and think that the blame lies with the club's owners (SISU, BR etc) and not ACL, who should not be made to pay for CCFC's failure.
Ability to pay has nothing to do with it. SISU had the cash when they sniffed a quick buck - now let's see how deep their pockets really are.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Well that is what is going to happen if we keep paying 1.2 million pound rent
Say bye, bye Mcgoldrick and anyone else of value. Say hello Luton Town and eventual oblivion
You are clearly not a supporter of the football club
PhilWasn'tBabb
New Member
If SISU do or don't have the money isn't the issue for me, the issue is a fair rent. The figures being banded about would suggest that the ACL have taken advantage of the financial incompetence of the people who signed the lease. Whilst SISU haven't covered themselves in glory up to this point they do at least appear to be getting somewhere with the rent issue.
I think the with holding of the rent has been key to getting the deal they have now been offer, it's only 12 months or so since the ACL were say that the stadium doesn't need CCFC, whilst that my or may not be true. Its interest that they have dropped the rent by 2/3, either they know they have been taking the piss for sometime, or having CCFC at the ground is of some benefit to them above just the rent we pay(or don't pay)
I think the with holding of the rent has been key to getting the deal they have now been offer, it's only 12 months or so since the ACL were say that the stadium doesn't need CCFC, whilst that my or may not be true. Its interest that they have dropped the rent by 2/3, either they know they have been taking the piss for sometime, or having CCFC at the ground is of some benefit to them above just the rent we pay(or don't pay)
CJparker
New Member
Not a bad post there Phil - but you seem to forget how much the council / ACL forked out to help build the stadium - the rent was agreed as a way of them getting that paid back. If we were in the Premier League now, nobody would be complaining about the rent. And whose fault is it that we are not in the Premier? It sure as hell isn't ACL's!!!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's nothing to do with paying them back. We are led to believe ACL are a profitable business and will continue to be profitable with no rent from the club.
The club will not survive under the current arrangements.
Many are to blame for where the club now resides.
CJparker
New Member
Ulness you think that the council should have made its investment in the stadium free of charge (which is unreasonable) then you have to accept that the rent is there to pay them back via ACL.
Let's face it, ACL will not survive without CCFC as Ricoh tenant, hence the strong arm tactics of non-payment, threatening to leave.
The club will survive if SISU continues to fund it. It is them and their predecessors, not ACL, who are to blame for the current mess, so it is their obligation to fund the turnaround (rent included) or just sell up - preferably to ACL
If SISU do or don't have the money isn't the issue for me, the issue is a fair rent. The figures being banded about would suggest that the ACL have taken advantage of the financial incompetence of the people who signed the lease. Whilst SISU haven't covered themselves in glory up to this point they do at least appear to be getting somewhere with the rent issue.
I think the with holding of the rent has been key to getting the deal they have now been offer, it's only 12 months or so since the ACL were say that the stadium doesn't need CCFC, whilst that my or may not be true. Its interest that they have dropped the rent by 2/3, either they know they have been taking the piss for sometime, or having CCFC at the ground is of some benefit to them above just the rent we pay(or don't pay)
Or they have bent over backwards to an organisation that has failed once more for the fans and only the fans ,Sisu are'nt broke and if they were they had a chance to stop losing money a year ago.They did'nt, they're culpable for their own failure,they can either find it or they can't .We would'nt be having any discussion about his if it was'nt for ACL/Higgs stepping up.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Bell is but one example-Hussey and McD can go too.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find that any contract extensions would've gone through Dulieu/Igwe.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
AT would've kicked the process off by saying, I want x, y, z on new contracts? Of course.
PhilWasn'tBabb
New Member
There must be 60 plus league clubs that at anyone one time thinking they have a divine right to be in the premiership, us being one of them. 60 into 20 doesn't work, whilst we should be at the very least be a mid table championship side. Its easy to say we "should" be in the premiership and it's all SISU fault that we're not, and yes the rent would not be an issue if we were.
There are a lot of clubs failing to be in the premiership we have to accept where we are and cut out cloth accordingly, which means not paying 3 times more rent then the majority of championship sides.
The Council are owned some money back for sure, but its not just the club that are responsible for that, there are a number of business which benefit from the stadium. ACL would appear to be shrude operators, they got to club to sign up to a lease that was more than 3 times what most clubs paid, they've done very nicely out of it, and got a fair chunk of money back over the last few years.
Clearly we're not going to agree over SISU's tactics, but do we can agree that we should be paying a more reasonable rent. (all other SISU issues aside)
.... Dam you your making me sound pro SISU, I'm really not ...honest...:thinking about:
There are a lot of clubs failing to be in the premiership we have to accept where we are and cut out cloth accordingly, which means not paying 3 times more rent then the majority of championship sides.
The Council are owned some money back for sure, but its not just the club that are responsible for that, there are a number of business which benefit from the stadium. ACL would appear to be shrude operators, they got to club to sign up to a lease that was more than 3 times what most clubs paid, they've done very nicely out of it, and got a fair chunk of money back over the last few years.
Clearly we're not going to agree over SISU's tactics, but do we can agree that we should be paying a more reasonable rent. (all other SISU issues aside)
.... Dam you your making me sound pro SISU, I'm really not ...honest...:thinking about:
SkyBlueCharlie
Well-Known Member
I still have a couple of major problems with all of this and they are;
where do all of these 'average' rent figures come from and secondly;
where are the facts and figures to support them?
I maintain that it is virtually impossible to calculate them as there are so many imponderables in the club accounts (that's all of the clubs not just CCFC). Quite a few clubs own their grounds but appear to have them heavily mortgaged so do we count those payments as rent? Some have more than one charge on their assetts, Cardiff for example had a mortgage outstanding to Hoffman's Venture Capital company that, at one stage was being interpreted as preventing Cardiff from selling any assetts (including players) without his approval. Would this be a charge on the ground that could be construed as rent? Swansea's ground is owned by the local authority and they have supported the club by charging only a 'peppercorn' rent. Now they are in the premiership the LA wants more...go away says Swansea. See the problem?
So, come on Mr Fisher, or anyone else for that matter, give us the detailed figures that support your 'fair rent' claims. Do that and I for one might be a little more sympathetic to your cause.
where do all of these 'average' rent figures come from and secondly;
where are the facts and figures to support them?
I maintain that it is virtually impossible to calculate them as there are so many imponderables in the club accounts (that's all of the clubs not just CCFC). Quite a few clubs own their grounds but appear to have them heavily mortgaged so do we count those payments as rent? Some have more than one charge on their assetts, Cardiff for example had a mortgage outstanding to Hoffman's Venture Capital company that, at one stage was being interpreted as preventing Cardiff from selling any assetts (including players) without his approval. Would this be a charge on the ground that could be construed as rent? Swansea's ground is owned by the local authority and they have supported the club by charging only a 'peppercorn' rent. Now they are in the premiership the LA wants more...go away says Swansea. See the problem?
So, come on Mr Fisher, or anyone else for that matter, give us the detailed figures that support your 'fair rent' claims. Do that and I for one might be a little more sympathetic to your cause.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Is this to me?
Swansea? My thread dedicated to it, has the web page with all facts on it. Ipswich, there was another thread and I comment was posted comparing us to Ipswich (who refused to pay rent) have a lot less contracted rent, and Hull didn't have to pay no rent, as a firm basically paid for it (in basic terms) all 3 are more successful than us, and have more money to spend.
We wonder why we have to sell players and not replace them when we have to pay 100k a month in rent!? :thinking about: Adam Barton a month isn't it, too much and anyone who thinks we should lie down and accept is smoking some good shit. - mind you, that's a fair few people.
glasgowfan
Well-Known Member
So it would appear that ACL's offer of £400K is about correct.
Discuss in less than 500 words!
The only CORRECT rent is what ACL can get. £400k is what they wouldlike, but the Ricoh is only worth what people will or can pay. An empty stadium is of no use to ACL.
I really don't get how 'fair price' has anything to do with the rent.
At the end of the day, the 'market' decides the correct price.
If ACL have other potential tennants or venues that would generate a rent income of more than the club is prepared to pay, then they should present their plans/offers to the club.
On the other hand - if the club can find a cheaper alternative than the present offer from ACL and work out a spreadsheet calculating the net cost of the alternative stadium rent and match day expenses and taking into account the expected loss of gate receipts, ST's and match day income ... they should present this to ACL.
That way the negotiations will focus around a market price (sort of).
'Fairness' and historical issues does not belong in a negotiation.
At the end of the day, the 'market' decides the correct price.
If ACL have other potential tennants or venues that would generate a rent income of more than the club is prepared to pay, then they should present their plans/offers to the club.
On the other hand - if the club can find a cheaper alternative than the present offer from ACL and work out a spreadsheet calculating the net cost of the alternative stadium rent and match day expenses and taking into account the expected loss of gate receipts, ST's and match day income ... they should present this to ACL.
That way the negotiations will focus around a market price (sort of).
'Fairness' and historical issues does not belong in a negotiation.
SkyBlueCharlie
Well-Known Member
No, not at you, I hadn't seen your thread on Swansea for example, if you pm me the link I'd would like to have a look.
It's a general and genuine question. As an former management accountant with some experience in this area, rents, overheads etc...NOT football clubs, I hasten to add....I spent some time looking at club accounts trying to see how or whether the £150k or any other figure in any division could be calculated with any degree of accuracy. I came to the conclusion that it couldn't because there are too many unknowns. Your examples of Swansea, Ipswich, Hull together with others such as Walsall, Manchester City are all examples of not only ground ownership/rents that are widely differing but are all treated in different ways in the club accounts making estimation of an 'average' impossible without making a lot of assumptions.
So my requests still stands...Mr Fisher started the ball rolling with his statement on 'average' rents....where are the detailed figures covering all the clubs in the League, not just odd exceptions, to back them up? I'm more than willing to be convinced so if there's anyone out there that can do it then....put up and I'll shut up!
