tisza
Well-Known Member
yes and no. the rent was high but the original plan was always to offset it by the club buying back into ACL .
yes and no. the rent was high but the original plan was always to offset it by the club buying back into ACL .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.
What is the going rate for a stadium off the Ricoh capacity? You never did say.
£182,500
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.
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.
The rent issue wasn't really challenged until Tim came.
Nonsense. The club tried to renegotiate four months after moving in. Two years before SISU showed up.
And before that the club negotiated as well didn't they?
When they were offered as sliding scale rent based in success and attendances.
The club rejected it asking for a fixed rent.
Do we know what the sliding rent was? Maybe that was an even worse deal?And before that the club negotiated as well didn't they?
When they were offered as sliding scale rent based in success and attendances.
The club rejected it asking for a fixed rent.
Maybe so. But to say that the rent wasn't an issue before SISU turned up is total fabrication.
The rent was a small problem and any reduction would help.
The actual problem was player wages which by far was the biggest cost.
Interesting to know what the sliding scale for D1 would have been though and the PL.
Rent is either a problem or it's not. And it was a problem.
Maybe so. But to say that the rent wasn't an issue before SISU turned up is total fabrication.
So the wage budget gets trimmed like sisu did, then look at the outrage because we aren't signing messi....Rent is a problem but it was not THE problem.
If we were in the PL the £1.4M would not be a problem.
When you need to trim your budget you need to look at everything.
Rent reduction would help but player costs reduction would have saved us from Sisu.
Player wages are key, that's why the fair play rules came in.
Do we know what the sliding rent was? Maybe that was an even worse deal?
Were the numbers posted too? I can't rememberIt think it has been stated on here before. It was linked to division and attendances. (Sounded quite reasonable if I recall)
The club rejected it as the envisaged themselves only going straight back up (higher rent)
Not what actually happened unfortunately
It think it has been stated on here before. It was linked to division and attendances. (Sounded quite reasonable if I recall)
The club rejected it as the envisaged themselves only going straight back up (higher rent)
Not what actually happened unfortunately
Maybe so. But to say that the rent wasn't an issue before SISU turned up is total fabrication.
It think it has been stated on here before. It was linked to division and attendances. (Sounded quite reasonable if I recall)
The club rejected it as the envisaged themselves only going straight back up (higher rent)
Not what actually happened unfortunately
No figures have ever been disclosed
Pretty sure no figures were actually given, just PWKH saying it was offered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So the wage budget gets trimmed like sisu did, then look at the outrage because we aren't signing messi....
If the rent was lower we may not have had to sell the income streams, which in turn would have more money coming in for wages, maybe?
I agree, they should have been dealt with. Do we know they didn't try?Everything needs to be done over time.
I initially supported Sisu in trying to balance the books but it needs to be done gradually.
Sisu also made some strange decisions regard managers and players I have yet to understand.
Those income streams should have been negotiated at the point when Sisu were discussing taking over CCFC.
The issue of rent and income streams certainly would have been identified in any due diligence they carried out.
SISU are hard-nosed business people dealing with millions - not by doddery parents
Pretty sure no figures were actually given, just PWKH saying it was offered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Originally Posted by PWKH
a couple of days ago in another thread I wrote:
Someone asked how the rental was arrived at: in the final years at HR the lease plus costs was c£900,000. The cost of lease and licence at the Rioch followed that model. It was signed off by Robinson and Brannigan for the Club and Fletcher and McGuigan on behalf of ACL. It had been agreed by the Boards of both ACL and CCFC.
Found this but haven't found the sliding scale bit yet, sorry
I think it was a case of a fixed rent was a greed that was set in relation to the rent the club were paying at Highfield road before leaving was it 950k.
It was a bit more for the Ricoh for obvious reasons.
Originally Posted by PWKH
Someone asked how the rental was arrived at: in the final years at HR the lease plus costs was c£900,000. The cost of lease and licence at the Rioch followed that model. It was signed off by Robinson and Brannigan for the Club and Fletcher and McGuigan on behalf of ACL. It had been agreed by the Boards of both ACL and CCFC.
Doesn't make a difference does it? What happens if the OAP used to be a lawyer and should know better?
It doesn't make it excusable like some try to does it?
Of course when SISU came in they should have played hardball in terms of rent and revenues BUT it doesn't excuse the fact it was extortionate in the first place does it?
Weren't the trust calling for admin to get new owners last time??I never paid any attention to such matters till things went tits up, I rather think you didn't either. Who did, I'll bet no one (except maybe OSB)
It seems clear to me the original rent was set to plug the hole in the ACL balance sheet as much as anything else. I'm sure that will be refuted, but in those first 5 years what other way was there without illegal public subsidies?
The complete Arena project was a financial cock up all the way through, no contingency, it relied on CCFC staying in the Premiership & then the ITV TV deal keeping value, neither happened. And to think I wanted the council to commit to seeing the Arena being built, that was a mistake, but to be fair it was an extraordinary situation the result of which would be hard to predict.
Why oh why didn't CCFC go into administration when they were relegated. Probably so the directors took a smaller hit.
The most unpalatable aspect of the SISU policy is to aggressively attempt to seize the stadium asset by attacking the company that was essentially set up only to help CCFC relocate to the Arena.
No way I support those ethics and that style, I decided I will just have to accept whatever befalls CCFC in order to counter people who would do that.
It is now time to go into administration and get new owners who run the club sensibly, for footballing reasons but who do not accumulate massive unsustainable debt year on year.
Lets be clear a bit of debt is OK, but it can't carry over and grow every year over (say) a decade, at some point you have to cut back for a few years and rebalance the books.
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?