Would You Still Go ? (11 Viewers)

Ian1779 · Dec 27, 2014

martcov said:
CCC had to jump in and then Higgs. They had to justify why to the taxpayers

What utter bollocks... they haven't justified anything historically, so I can't see why they needed to get on their high horse about this. The investment in terms of taxpayers was minimal at best.. and they have thrown money left, right and centre at allsorts (Coombe Abbey just recently) whilst at the same time cutting services to vulnerable people.

It's a very lazy excuse to justify the shameful opportunism that occurred when the club moved to the Ricoh. CCFC was bent over a barrel and CCC duly obliged in shafting them for their own benefit.

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

Grendel said:
It was you who seemed keen on the landlord analogy - now you seem reluctant to comment - perhaps you support landlords who blatantly exploit the homeless? I don't know.

No, you obviously don't know. I do, however, support due diligence before buying a business. Especially when it is a distressed business. It would be foolhardy not to.

Grendel · Dec 27, 2014

martcov said:
No, you obviously don't know. I do, however, support due diligence before buying a business. Especially when it is a distressed business. It would be foolhardy not to.

What do you think of the original rent deal to the homeless football club?

Fair or not fair?

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

Ian1779 said:
What utter bollocks... they haven't justified anything historically, so I can't see why they needed to get on their high horse about this. The investment in terms of taxpayers was minimal at best.. and they have thrown money left, right and centre at allsorts (Coombe Abbey just recently) whilst at the same time cutting services to vulnerable people.

It's a very lazy excuse to justify the shameful opportunism that occurred when the club moved to the Ricoh. CCFC was bent over a barrel and CCC duly obliged in shafting them for their own benefit.

Some sweeping statements there. They are still waiting for 13,5m from ACL. As regards, giving out money for one thing and cutting funding for another, that is decided by CCC as an elected body. If you feel so strongly vote the council out or join a party and get your voice heard. Pushing your discontent on to me won't get anyone anywhere.

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

Grendel said:
What do you think of the original rent deal to the homeless football club?

Fair or not fair?

I answered Nick on that - read back.

tisza · Dec 27, 2014

The rent argument is a vicious circle.
The original rent was set against the need to repay a fixed-term loan that had been taken out to build the stadium that the football club wanted.
The council loan and its new terms combined with having a 2nd sports team using the stadium has allowed greater flexibility in allowing a much lower rent.

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

tisza said:
The rent argument is a vicious circle.
The original rent was set against the need to repay a fixed-term loan that had been taken out to build the stadium that the football club wanted.
The council loan and its new terms combined with having a 2nd sports team using the stadium has allowed greater flexibility in allowing a much lower rent.

In other words it wasn't an opportunist landlord exploiting the homeless by charging 10 times the going rent? Thanks for confirming that. Let's hope a deal can be done to keep it with 2 sports teams. Better for everyone.

Grendel · Dec 27, 2014

martcov said:
In other words it wasn't an opportunist landlord exploiting the homeless by charging 10 times the going rent? Thanks for confirming that. Let's hope a deal can be done to keep it with 2 sports teams. Better for everyone.

Yes it was. Try looking at the way other councils value their clubs.

Try looking at match threads starting tomorrow as well. Would make a nice change.

Colin1883 · Dec 27, 2014

L1, l2,,, I can't see a lot of difference between the two, as this season I will go when I can...

egastap · Dec 27, 2014

Now I remember why I left this forum for almost three years, having read this thread. Maybe I should have second thoughts about coming back. Some of the commenters on here......unbelievable!

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

Grendel said:
Yes it was. Try looking at the way other councils value their clubs.

Try looking at match threads starting tomorrow as well. Would make a nice change.

Apparently most other clubs don't dig themselves into a hole as we did. Originally we were to have a 40000 stadium with removable pitch and a sliding roof. We were to have 365 day revenue to fund a team capable of taking on Barcelona. I had the stadium model in my hands ( given to me by Richardson ). How on earth is the council to blame for having to save the day on this ambitious project. It was CCCFs idea.
You obviously miss a lot of things on here. I do look at match threads - between working, guests, driving etc.. Nick said he couldn't find me in the viewing liste - I wasn't logged on as I only looked in between things ( "browsed" ), and Nick couldn't be "arsed" to find my German ip as a "browser". Tomorrow I am a guest at my step daughter's - but I will look in now and again. Missus just asked what I was explaining... said "es ist wie im Kindergarten" because I have to justify my browsing habits.

Ian1779 · Dec 27, 2014

martcov said:
Some sweeping statements there. They are still waiting for 13,5m from ACL. As regards, giving out money for one thing and cutting funding for another, that is decided by CCC as an elected body. If you feel so strongly vote the council out or join a party and get your voice heard. Pushing your discontent on to me won't get anyone anywhere.

So as you put it...the council do not need to justify anything they do. So suggesting that setting an astronomical rent for CCFC was in the taxpayers interest is wrong.

GaryPendrysEyes · Dec 27, 2014

Sisu specialise in taking over debt-ridden businesses. They conducted due diligence and agreed a long term rental contract with ACL.

Divert as much as you like, for whatever reason, but that's the business reality.

stupot07 · Dec 27, 2014

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Sisu specialise in taking over debt-ridden businesses. They conducted due diligence and agreed a long term rental contract with ACL.

Divert as much as you like, for whatever reason, but that's the business reality.

They didn't agree a long term rent contract with ACL - that was already in place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

Ian1779 said:
So as you put it...the council do not need to justify anything they do. So suggesting that setting an astronomical rent for CCFC was in the taxpayers interest is wrong.

read tizas post. remember that CCFC started this and had to be bailed out in order to finish the stadium which was their idea. see my previous post.

GaryPendrysEyes · Dec 27, 2014

stupot07 said:
They didn't agree a long term rent contract with ACL - that was already in place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Dont be stupid. Of course they did, they took over and agreed the contract.
They signed it off and 'owned' it as part of the takeover.

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

stupot07 said:
They didn't agree a long term rent contract with ACL - that was already in place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

in other words, they passively accepted it.

Kingokings204 · Dec 27, 2014

martcov said:
in other words, they passively accepted it.

Passive to an extent

GaryPendrysEyes · Dec 27, 2014

martcov said:
in other words, they passively accepted it.

No, it wasnt 'passive'. They had to legally sign and take on the contract as part of the takeover. Same with any takeover in contract law.

stupot07 · Dec 27, 2014

martcov said:
in other words, they passively accepted it.

Not sure that's particularly true either. Ranson led the takeover, rushed it through instead of letting us go into admin, and has his strategy of what he wanted to do.

It was the wrong choice. Should have a) let us gone into admin, and following the take over b) either bought higgs share or renegotiated lower rent at the start, and c) addressed the wage bill that was far too high (even if that meant relegation).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Gazolba · Dec 27, 2014

bringbackrattles said:
In the pub last night I got talking to two ex City fans who no longer go as they've lost interest. When I said I still go and am going to the Chesterfield match on Sunday they said I must be mad.I also said even if we go down to League Two I'll carry on supporting them at which I thought they were going to call a doctor as they looked at me as if I was mentally ill. Obviously I don't want relegation far from it, but if it comes down to it I'll just have to face reality. Am I in the minority then by continuing my support of my club no matter what ?

Yes ,you are in the minority but look at any team that is bottom of the league and you will find they don't have a zero attendance. Some people will watch any team no matter how unsuccessful, no matter how hopeless their league position, or how long it is since they have won anything. There is nothing wrong with this, it's just a personal choice.

GaryPendrysEyes · Dec 27, 2014

The fact is they agreed and took on the long term rental contract.
You can speculate why.
Such as they had a business plan, in which a rent of 5% of turnover at the time wasnt seen as a major concern, for instance when they wage bill was over 100% of turnover!

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2014

Grendel said:
What do you think of the original rent deal to the homeless football club?

Fair or not fair?

What is the going rate for a stadium off the Ricoh capacity? You never did say.

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

GaryPendrysEyes said:
No, it wasnt 'passive'. They had to legally sign and take on the contract as part of the takeover. Same with any takeover in contract law.

Yes. You are right. I meant in the sense that they didn't negotiate it.

stupot07 · Dec 27, 2014

GaryPendrysEyes said:
The fact is they agreed and took on the long term rental contract.
You can speculate why.
Such as they had a business plan, in which a rent of 5% of turnover at the time wasnt seen as a major concern, for instance when they wage bill was over 100% of turnover!

It wasn't 5% of turnover. Our turnover hadn't been anywhere near £26m since we got relegated from the PL. Are you saying that our wage bill was more than £26m? More BS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

stupot07 said:
It wasn't 5% of turnover. Our turnover hadn't been anywhere near £26m since we got relegated from the PL. Are you saying that our wage bill was more than £26m? More BS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

The rent issue wasn't really challenged until Tim came.

Gazolba · Dec 27, 2014

Paxman II said:
... if we started winning regular and god forbid we got promoted. They would dwindle again if we were doing badly in the championship too. such is football - so much is linked to success on the pitch. fans are fickle and they can't be blamed for that...

I don't think its so much winning but the fans expect 100% effort for 90 minutes. The fans expect the players to show they are proud of the shirt and want to win and fight to the last breath until the whistle blows. It's no disrespect to get beaten by a better team but most fans wont stand for sub-standard performances week in week out. In short, they want value for money. The present owners and manager have demonstrated they are clueless about teams, players and tactics and the performances are definitely not value for money..

chiefdave · Dec 27, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
What is the going rate for a stadium of the Ricoh's capacity?

Looking at what Wasps paid for 250 years the going rate for access to all revenues from the Ricoh is £22,160 a year.

martcov said:
Based on what they paying to rent HR back.

Wouldn't the rent at HR have given the club all income generated, but at the Ricoh paying rent didn't give us access to any revenue.

chiefdave · Dec 27, 2014

Has there ever been any justification from CCC, Higgs or ACL regarding the £1.2m rent? If you look back ACL paid £21m for a 50 year lease, without interest that's £420K. If that's all they were paying for all of the Ricoh had did we end up paying £1.2m a year for the shop, some offices and using the stadium bowl 20something times a year?

martcov · Dec 27, 2014

chiefdave said:
Looking at what Wasps paid for 250 years the going rate for access to all revenues from the Ricoh is £22,160 a year.

Wouldn't the rent at HR have given the club all income generated, but at the Ricoh paying rent didn't give us access to any revenue.

The going rate is what the market will bear. In the case of the Ricoh - 19m for a period of 250 years. One payment ( in two parts ) of 5,5m and the repayment of an outstanding loan of 13,5m plus interest to the council. I would say that the deal on buying into the Ricoh should have been done a long while ago, even though the buy in price was higher then.

Didn't CCFC sell the F&B share?

Haven't Compass invested a lot of money and therefore have bought into the F&B in the meantime?

Not clearcut.

Hobo · Dec 27, 2014

It is not the level we play at, it is to do with the integrity of the club, it honesty with its fans, the effort the players put in. I can cope with an honest shift.

i would go and watch eleven Greg Downes represent city but wouldn't go near one Freddie Eastwood?

chiefdave · Dec 27, 2014

Before Compass got involved or anything like that ACL paid £420K a year plus interest for the whole of the Ricoh. They then charged CCFC £1.2m a year for very limited revenue access, does that seem fair?

tisza · Dec 27, 2014

chiefdave said:
Has there ever been any justification from CCC, Higgs or ACL regarding the £1.2m rent? If you look back ACL paid £21m for a 50 year lease, without interest that's £420K. If that's all they were paying for all of the Ricoh had did we end up paying £1.2m a year for the shop, some offices and using the stadium bowl 20something times a year?

simplified view. ACL had the option of paying CCC 1.9 million a year in rent or paying a lump sum of 21 million that the council could use to pay off the loan used to complete the Ricoh. the ACL 21 million was a loan to be paid off over a 20 year period hence the size of the original rental agreement.

Ian1779 · Dec 27, 2014

tisza said:
simplified view. ACL had the option of paying CCC 1.9 million a year in rent or paying a lump sum of 21 million that the council could use to pay off the loan used to complete the Ricoh. the ACL 21 million was a loan to be paid off over a 20 year period hence the size of the original rental agreement.

So in essence CCFC had the full responsibility to service the loan, but not a single benefit from it in additional revenue. How ACL chose to service the debt was not the clubs responsibility, yet it was screwed over regardless.

Samo · Dec 27, 2014

Ian1779 said:
So in essence CCFC had the full responsibility to service the loan, but not a single benefit from it me additional revenue. How ACL chose to service the debt was not the clubs responsibility, yet it was screwed over regardless.

Exactly right but shhhh! Don't point that out or you must love Sisu.

Would You Still Go ? (11 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency