Nick
Administrator
Ironic thing is, Tony didn't read something and went on one and now you are getting excited over it, also clearly not reading.
Will Wasps aquiring the Ricoh damage CCFC? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter torchomatic
- Start date
Ironic thing is, Tony didn't read something and went on one and now you are getting excited over it, also clearly not reading.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Not in the least Nick... I was doing a Grenduffy.. Any opportunity to take the piss out of him like he does with me. Nothing moreIronic thing is, Tony didn't read something and went on one and now you are getting excited over it, also clearly not reading.
Anything said about "Live streams" and he's the leader of the pack to get in first. I'll do the same about "Facts"
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The basic simple answer is yes..... not sure how you can see it any other way.
However if you then go on and ask the same old questions and get in to the same old circular arguments on here then it is not perhaps so clear cut in some ways. Depends how the club reacts to this and how the owners and other stakeholders work to use it as impetus to find a solution or not. We don't actually know what could have been, what could have been achieved, what success CCFC could have achieved by owning the Ricoh - could our owners drive the whole business forward.
It has for example focussed minds on living within means which is a positive start to rebuilding
As it stands now then yes not owning the Ricoh holds us back if we get success on the pitch and that becomes more of a problem if we get promoted. If we continue to fail then you could perhaps see being at the Ricoh as a lifeline
Could CCFC have more income from the Ricoh, well yes but it will cost either by outright purchase of income streams or by actually putting on events there like any other customer. That has always been the case. It would seem plenty of customers are making the Ricoh work for them, why cant CCFC? Yes that means putting money in the Wasps coffers and accepting perhaps lower net margins but if Turnover is key why is it never actually focussed on in actions? It wont come free but then why should it. I know many expect it as of right because somehow being CCFC entitles us but in the real business world that is not going to happen
So we pay rent and match day expenses - not going to be different where ever we go, unless CCFC actually own it when rent is replaced by substantial finance costs and 23 days of match expenses are replaced by 365 days stadium upkeep.
Too many on here focus on only one side of the equation - the missed out on income but that income comes with costs risk and breakeven points. Do the additional net incomes cover the 365 day costs, who knows no one has seen fit to put forward a plan. In any case the club is willing to fore go income when it suits them. They franchised out the shop and program incomes and take a cut - is that cut more or less than the net profit they made before doing it in house ? certainly the move affects the SCMP calculation. Plenty of clubs own their own ground and still make millions of £'s in losses. It is not as simple as owning the ground makes everything right
The f&b of £72k that TF and others glibly go on to compare with turnovers in past years is a misdirection, a nonsense. The £72k is the net profit share which they seek to compare to the top line net turnover in an effort to prove how little we get. They ignore the lack of cost contribution they make and the lack of risk. Is the f&b margin 11% ? well it was apparently but if you do the maths using the figures provided most recently then the net profit from CCFC F&B actually turns out to be an acceptable 30% which is split equally between Wasps & CCFC
Stadium name rights, some sponsorship and car parking are less straight forward. If we were to go to BPA these would be shared or in the case of car parking it looks unobtainable. There are solutions but they cost - which is the real problem and always has been, along with a rejection of putting a penny more than absolutely necessary towards the stadium. I sometimes feel CCFC takes a cut off your nose to spite your face approach, I wonder who drives that?
We can make all the excuses we like but until we get directors and owners interested in really driving CCFC (not any other entity) on then we end up accepting what is, pointing accusatory and envious fingers of blame and letting problems not solutions be the driver to CCFC existence.
Has Wasps move here damaged a perceived and desired future for CCFC - yes, but now the club and fans have to deal with that, and find ways to drive the future forward not remain in a blame filled past. Personally see no real evidence of that happening, a little peripheral tinkering yes but until there is leadership the fans trust can CCFC move forward in spite of Wasps owning the stadium? because they have to, they must do
However if you then go on and ask the same old questions and get in to the same old circular arguments on here then it is not perhaps so clear cut in some ways. Depends how the club reacts to this and how the owners and other stakeholders work to use it as impetus to find a solution or not. We don't actually know what could have been, what could have been achieved, what success CCFC could have achieved by owning the Ricoh - could our owners drive the whole business forward.
It has for example focussed minds on living within means which is a positive start to rebuilding
As it stands now then yes not owning the Ricoh holds us back if we get success on the pitch and that becomes more of a problem if we get promoted. If we continue to fail then you could perhaps see being at the Ricoh as a lifeline
Could CCFC have more income from the Ricoh, well yes but it will cost either by outright purchase of income streams or by actually putting on events there like any other customer. That has always been the case. It would seem plenty of customers are making the Ricoh work for them, why cant CCFC? Yes that means putting money in the Wasps coffers and accepting perhaps lower net margins but if Turnover is key why is it never actually focussed on in actions? It wont come free but then why should it. I know many expect it as of right because somehow being CCFC entitles us but in the real business world that is not going to happen
So we pay rent and match day expenses - not going to be different where ever we go, unless CCFC actually own it when rent is replaced by substantial finance costs and 23 days of match expenses are replaced by 365 days stadium upkeep.
Too many on here focus on only one side of the equation - the missed out on income but that income comes with costs risk and breakeven points. Do the additional net incomes cover the 365 day costs, who knows no one has seen fit to put forward a plan. In any case the club is willing to fore go income when it suits them. They franchised out the shop and program incomes and take a cut - is that cut more or less than the net profit they made before doing it in house ? certainly the move affects the SCMP calculation. Plenty of clubs own their own ground and still make millions of £'s in losses. It is not as simple as owning the ground makes everything right
The f&b of £72k that TF and others glibly go on to compare with turnovers in past years is a misdirection, a nonsense. The £72k is the net profit share which they seek to compare to the top line net turnover in an effort to prove how little we get. They ignore the lack of cost contribution they make and the lack of risk. Is the f&b margin 11% ? well it was apparently but if you do the maths using the figures provided most recently then the net profit from CCFC F&B actually turns out to be an acceptable 30% which is split equally between Wasps & CCFC
Stadium name rights, some sponsorship and car parking are less straight forward. If we were to go to BPA these would be shared or in the case of car parking it looks unobtainable. There are solutions but they cost - which is the real problem and always has been, along with a rejection of putting a penny more than absolutely necessary towards the stadium. I sometimes feel CCFC takes a cut off your nose to spite your face approach, I wonder who drives that?
We can make all the excuses we like but until we get directors and owners interested in really driving CCFC (not any other entity) on then we end up accepting what is, pointing accusatory and envious fingers of blame and letting problems not solutions be the driver to CCFC existence.
Has Wasps move here damaged a perceived and desired future for CCFC - yes, but now the club and fans have to deal with that, and find ways to drive the future forward not remain in a blame filled past. Personally see no real evidence of that happening, a little peripheral tinkering yes but until there is leadership the fans trust can CCFC move forward in spite of Wasps owning the stadium? because they have to, they must do
Last edited: