Anyone notice the build cost of £27M. mostly funded by the Council,pretty much what our council contributed .Does the Swansea rent pay down that expense thought the Stadium management company?Like our Council there has been no profit taken ,the only other difference in that Article is that opposition Councilors wish to Jack up the rent not controlling party of the Council.:thinking about:
Playing devils advocate here. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter coundonskyblue
- Start date
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
£10million from Coventry Council.
I wonder where the money from Compass went to? ACL? Never seen that shown in figures anywhere.
£125 million for 10 years a hell of a lot of money, whether upfront or £12.5million per year.
Would make the "profit" that ACL alledgedly makes of around £1million into huge loss wouldn't it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I can see no evidence this arrangement even exists. Also the football club seem to have joint ownership of the management company.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Coundon must be thinking that when he was facing his own goal with the ball at his feet that he wished he hadn't kicked it in.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
the 125m refers to the potential sales attached to the deal over 10 years it was not a payment to acl
As far as I've become aware LS ,OSB straightened the compass situation out ,as myself and others have held a misconception that Compass when signing the 10yr £125M. deal somehow contributed to ACL's bottom line ,when the reality was a share of the "Anticipated turnover of £12.5M. PA.
The Council exposure at the outset was around £30M. swiftly reduced by the £21M.Lease IIRC.
sky blue zam
Member
sisu didnt seem to have a problem paying £1.2m until april last year when relegation was looking certain
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
So the "£125million deal" really just a load of corporate bollocks and spin then.
http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co...5m-deal-at-coventry-city-fc-s-ricoh-arena.htm
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Not strictly true. The previous regime tried to renegotiate in December 2005. If Swansea rent figure if true then our payment swamps it.. ACL really are shameless.
Thats how it looks ,as with most things in life we're continually exposed to it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So what?
Swansea message boards show anger at the council opposition for trying to increase a rent that is less than half what we have been paying
Some of our fans seem outraged when we try and get the rent reduced. I hope other fans don't visit this site. The attitude is embarrasing.
Torch, Coundon indicates in his OP thate Mcginity /Robinson et al were offered the percentage deal that Swansea operate ,so while they attempted to re-negotiate ,it was down to their own ineptitude ,much like Richardsons performance .
You could'nt make it up.
Whats worse is that the Current owners while paying the level of rent demanded ,chose to reduce their income by reducing ST prices ,then mortgaging against them ,incurring interest charges while reducing gate receipts .now that must have cost us Circa £1M. per season.:thinking about:
hill83
Well-Known Member
Again, peoples hatred of Sisu blinds them to the fact that we, and it is 'we' are paying too much in rent. It's as simple as that. Regardless of the reasons why, or how it came about it's too much. Saying "Sisu agreed to it" means nothing. I agreed to my phone contract, which I then felt was too much so wanted to change it. Just because I agreed to it originally doesn't change the fact it was probably too expensive to begin with.
And before someone pipes up with "Did you just stop paying" or something similar, no I didn't. And that's where I stop arguing for Sisu, because they went about this entirely wrong.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Where is the rental deal Swansea have. I can't see it anywhere and Coundon want say his source.
One Bbc article suggests they have paid next to nothing in the first 6 years it was built.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
no club particularly needs to own their stadium so long as they are getting a good deal and access to revenue streams. we have been paying way over the odds and not getting access to any revenue streams!
one thing that doesn't get mentioned is what happens when ACLs lease runs out. at that point the Ricoh will no longer be a modern stadium and the council, as owners, may decide to knock it down and use the land for something else, what happens to the football club then?
one thing that doesn't get mentioned is what happens when ACLs lease runs out. at that point the Ricoh will no longer be a modern stadium and the council, as owners, may decide to knock it down and use the land for something else, what happens to the football club then?
Don't know I'm affraid KD.maybe when he gets back from lunch he can furnish us with a link:thinking about:
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
I agree that it was too much. But I don't think the offer that they rejected is. They seem utterly incapable of compromise. And it also took them a long time to complain about the existing deal-and when they did, they did it in totally the wrong way, as you say.
sky blue zam
Member
im not saying this though. im simply saying sisu as far as im aware never complained about the amount of rent being paid. the rent is way too high and acl seem to have screwed ccfc with this agreement. but since sisu took charge until last april nobody including fans seemed to have a problem with the rent, the whole agreement but not the rent.
If and when the council find the right candidate is running our club ,you'd have to hope they would at minimum extend the lease to 99 yrs ,or if they recieved the right offer ,let go of the freehold .I beieve that is of little value now but will come to full value as the lease gets shorter .Maybe the right offer would allow them to do something worthwhile somewhere else in the City :thinking about:
There would be total credibility if SISU had made this stand at the takeover point where there was an appetite from some supporters to pressurise the Council.
Currently, it just seems like they have attempted to get out of jail with the lack of their commitment to our club, by a knockover ACL Strategy producing their pot of gold before running for the hills. This is where we're at ,running pretty much insolvent for two seasons now and their continued hold on the Club hastening /fuelling our demise ,for me this row has nothing to do with rent or income streams or doing it for the Club or fans,JMO.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. My comment wasn't necessarily aimed at you.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
It will have to be refitted many years before the lease runs out.
The stadium may get old but I think it will be the home of the club for the next 75-100 years, cue the fiasco of reveveloping the ground in 2045.
davebart
Active Member
whereas everything else we pay for is a bargain???
tisza
Well-Known Member
This is something people forget when they quote Ipswich and Forest rental deals. They have had to reinvest large sums in upgrading their facilities.
hill83
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you mean.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
the people who say the councils offer was reasonable dont understand
if you need £100 to survive and someone offers you £90...thats not enough no matter how much ground they have given, it helps noone.
if you need £100 to survive and someone offers you £90...thats not enough no matter how much ground they have given, it helps noone.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
S we would only be 52 million in debt brilliant
leicesterskyblue
New Member
May have been excessive...but it was agreed to, the club weren't held at gun point...we used to own a ground..we sold it thinking we were clever...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Coundon still no news on the source of this information?
James you always seem very anxious to identify the source when it's me. Have you not seen this post?
mrtickle
Member
Why do people seem happy at slating the club. They agreed to high costs so they deserve it and the like. FFS, support the club, don't slate them, no matter how much you hate those in charge.
I swear some idiots will be dancing in the street if we go bust.
SISU saved us no matter what you think of them. I want rid of them too but not at the expense of the club!!!!
Rant over.
I swear some idiots will be dancing in the street if we go bust.
SISU saved us no matter what you think of them. I want rid of them too but not at the expense of the club!!!!
Rant over.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
This thread always just makes me think of the episode of The Simpson's where Homer says "Marge, may I play Devil's Advocate for a moment?" then walks over to the other side of the room and spends a while playing on a pinball game called "Devil's Advocate". 
mattylad
Member
I know its painful to try and get the point across at times! Even if fingers crossed we get rid of SISU and get new backers unless the issues surrounding income and expenditure are addressed we are going to just get back into the same mess. I notice JE has reiterated no 50% no deal so least he understands what is required to make CCFC work.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
But the rent is a fraction of our overall losses...Bell and Wood's wages are more of a drain.
mattylad
Member
Its never been about rent its all about the Ricoh. ACL have it and don't want to lose it hence the ludicrous demands for investment, CCFC need part of it to survive and SISU/PHIV all realise that long term its where the profit is