dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
That is a strange thing for a football expert to say. A bit play groundish
response (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter mattylad
- Start date
That is a strange thing for a football expert to say. A bit play groundish
The point that seems to be glossed over, is that the club cannot survive long term without those revenues. Yet, faced with the prospect of the club going under, ACL step in to try and prevent liquidation.
Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't bully the club and deny them the revenues they need to survive, and when they look like they might not survive get your knickers in knot and blame the people who told you repeatedly they could not afford it in the first place. Not only that, we then have to endure their shameless attempt to scramble to the top of the moral high ground and paint themselves a knights in shining armour for 'saving' the club. Just doesn't wash.
SISU told ACL what it could reasonably afford, but they didn't want to listen. They are denying the club income that they generate themselves (like landlord saying to a shop tenant, we'll take your rent each month, and on top of that, a nice chunk of what your customers spend also), but cry like babies when that tenant announces it cannot afford it. At least a shop landlord can move in another tenant. ACL cannot do that which makes their position even more absurd.
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Well, that's what the guy said. He's independent so I thought people on here (wherever their sympathies lie) would take note.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
Why is the pig shoot a bad idea?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately it seems we have owners who care very little and are prepared to liquidate the football club over possibly 100k?
Luckily for us we have a council and charity with a vested interest. Who by proxy do actually also care about the future of Coventry as a city as a whole.
We are very very lucky they they have been able to fight our corner
Luckily for us we have a council and charity with a vested interest. Who by proxy do actually also care about the future of Coventry as a city as a whole.
We are very very lucky they they have been able to fight our corner
mattylad
Member
Actually the club invested 20m in to the project before it got relegated and could not afford to put the rest in and I am not saying that its fair on the council but it is a fact regarless of stand point that it is killing the club to not have access to revenue it produces.........just imagine any other business having to hand a large percentage of its revenue over to a third party for no gain and see how long it would survive!
Yes wages are still a bigger issue and we know the current board have made big strides to cut these and would have made further ones this summer when Woods/Mcsheff come out of contract but it is only part of the problem
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
But he didn't actually speak out against ACL, did he? He stated the model wasn't right - and as I cite above - and you can answer it this time if you wish; the opportunity was there to renegotiate. When buying into the club and thereafter. SISU didn't.
What they tried to do was to distress ACL and look to acquire it on the cheap. Even Ferret concedes this.
Do you think it's any more fair they pick up a ACL for peanuts - an organisation they're only responsible for 17% of the turnover for - and enjoy the balance of the business that's been built up?
Can you tell me one other football club that managed this?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Essentially though the business model at CCFC hasnt changed since the day it disposed ofthe match day income rights. Everyone and their dog realised that the key to success was good fiscal control but above all the level of income.
So given that premise the only way to make it a success was to gain access to those rights from day 1 and reduce costs to viable levels to match that income. Those rights could have been bought, leased, earnt out, shared on basis of increased crowds etc.......... there were lots of ways it could have been done. That would have benefitted both CCFC and ACL
And yet the key to the whole thing was ignored, deemed less important than spending on second rate players and other added in costs.
The thing is the possibility of gaining those rights is still on the table............. but we have owners who want to play billy big bollocks and expect them for nothing ........
Bloody frustrating............ I only hope we do get new owners who are prepared to address the business model and deal sensibly with ACL, that ACL are open minded and prepared to do a new deal and that we can go forward properly. It is in both companies best interests to get a deal done but one company's need is far greater right now
So given that premise the only way to make it a success was to gain access to those rights from day 1 and reduce costs to viable levels to match that income. Those rights could have been bought, leased, earnt out, shared on basis of increased crowds etc.......... there were lots of ways it could have been done. That would have benefitted both CCFC and ACL
And yet the key to the whole thing was ignored, deemed less important than spending on second rate players and other added in costs.
The thing is the possibility of gaining those rights is still on the table............. but we have owners who want to play billy big bollocks and expect them for nothing ........
Bloody frustrating............ I only hope we do get new owners who are prepared to address the business model and deal sensibly with ACL, that ACL are open minded and prepared to do a new deal and that we can go forward properly. It is in both companies best interests to get a deal done but one company's need is far greater right now
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Because OSB58, fans are always more concerned about those "second rate players" that we buy. Or sell.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
but when they came in the owners have the opportunity to address that with some thought and sensible PR achieves more long term torch
Bluegloucester
New Member
Sisu have never agreed a deal with ACL
yeah but they have already said that they made mistakes in the past.. so we are just going over old ground trying to blame things on whats happened in the past
as i say, SISU know they made mistakes in the past.. and they are trying to rectify that now & move forwards with a deal that should have been in place from the start and that will give the club a sound financial footing.. unfortunately for them, i think they have left it too late & gone around it in the wrong manner
Indeed they didn't, but what they did do is make it clear what they were willing to pay - 400K in rent in return to profits from parking and F&B which we are told amounts to around 250K.
Nobody from ACL has ever disputed this that I am aware of (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong). This was not agreeable to ACL, and we don't really know why. I maintain that I believe that was a fair offer, but clearly it fell short of what ACL wanted.
Will they get more than that from new owners? Who knows, but I doubt it very much. I suspect we may end up with new owners paying less than what we understand the SISU offer to be. Put it this way, if they agree to pay ACL 400K per year in rent contributions as a third division club then alarm bells would start ringing straight away and we'd only be storing up more financial problems further down the line.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Perhaps he had been reading posts on this site, from all concerned, and he picked up all the childish drivel he needed.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
With the greatest of respect, we signed 9 players over the summer; and by Fisher's own admission when we entered a transfer embargo recently - we can't adhere already to next year's FFP model, and therefore we'll enter next season under embargo too.
What sort of a sustainable model is that?!?!?
Can someone please clarify something for me.
There's lots of talk about the matchday income and that the club does not have access to the food and drink money etc. How much money are we talking about ? As far as I can see the food and drink sales would not be massive - I know there are a few porkers who are good for a couple of pies but just 50% of that money (as I think thats all the club were going to get with the original agreement) isn't it just a drop in the ocean.
I also thought that for the hospitality tickets the club would still get that money (just not anything spent at the ground on the day) together with programme profits. Or does the matchday income include sponsorship money for the boards round the ground etc.
Any idea of the value of this would be appreciated.
There's lots of talk about the matchday income and that the club does not have access to the food and drink money etc. How much money are we talking about ? As far as I can see the food and drink sales would not be massive - I know there are a few porkers who are good for a couple of pies but just 50% of that money (as I think thats all the club were going to get with the original agreement) isn't it just a drop in the ocean.
I also thought that for the hospitality tickets the club would still get that money (just not anything spent at the ground on the day) together with programme profits. Or does the matchday income include sponsorship money for the boards round the ground etc.
Any idea of the value of this would be appreciated.
I honestly don't know the exact terms of the agreement, someone like Jan might.
But, I do know from the corporate arrangement we have, the £13,000 we spend each season for the box goes to the club. The £5000-£6000 spent on F&B goes to ACL/Compass (not sure of the terms of that agreement). Not sure about pitchside advertising, we had a board one year which was organised through the club, so not sure on the split between CCFC/ACL. Since that lapsed though, it has been a third partY agency acting on behalf of ACL who have been trying to get us to renew it.
mattylad
Member
But those players replaced high earners that had already been moved on (maybe not nine players for nine players) but cost of wages wise it was a serious reduction in playing budget on the previous year.
mattylad
Member
ACL were prepared to allow SISU to put the sales through its books but still wanted them to then send the revenue on to ACL, it was of no benefit to the club other than for FFP it could have shown a higher overall level of income. ACL were also prepared to discuss moving some of the revenue to SISU but given the rhetoric spouted by PKNH tosday I presume this was heavily linked to investment in the surrounding area of the Ricoh which is never going to happen
LoyalSupporters
New Member
What's this about an American take over?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Whilst I don't disagree with that - and also to acknowledge that the primary cut in wages was Orange Ken's doing and not this board's - to sign this summer so many players (with full knowledge of FFP and it's ramifications) that automatically places us into embargo for next season already isn't something I think they deserve commending for
Sub
Well-Known Member
So was relegation oranges kens doing !!!! to many cuts to quick cost us millions
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
My understanding of what Fisher was saying was that even allowing for players out of contract in the summer; without additional income from ACL, or promotion, we're in a transfer embargo situation next season
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting debate, and perhaps not for a day that's already as well-populated with topics as this; but many folk might argue such. And before some renowned posters saddle up their high-horse and charge at a certain portly ex-manager; that's investment on both the playing and coaching sides of the club
