bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Wow that building company was really generous letting us play in their ground for free don't you think?
Serious question about ACL, CCC (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter The Gentleman
- Start date
Wow that building company was really generous letting us play in their ground for free don't you think?
That is true.
Instead the profit has been reinvested in the facillities - which means the net asset value of ACL has gone up whereby the value of CCC's shares have gone up.
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
Olympic football and England U21's are not international events, no?
I don't really find percentages interesting. It's pretty much like statistics (although I am a sucker for football stats).
Are the numbers even comparable? Does the original rent include matchday cost? And wasn't the £150k offer exclusive matchday cost?
But even that is not really relevant, is it?
The only interesting question is: Is the overall deal is enough to make sure the club is long term viable and in support of the fans ambitions of a return to PL.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Selling the ground and renting back is different to a normal arrangement.
Do you know details? I don't. Was it £1 million every year or just as quoted the final year. What did we receive for the sale?
The fact PWKH used this final year as an assessment of rental value is to me very telling.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Olympics will never happen again. When was the last U21 game? It's an empty FOOTBALL stadium so really they need to attract football (and rugby) events.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
October 2009. Interestingly the under 21's have also played games at stadium MKdons in the same year.
Just looking at the 2013-15 u21 fixtures, they have already played at the Majeski, brammell lane and Portman road, then are scheduled to play at MK Dons (again) and then the New Meadow.
The new meadow must be a world class international venue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The new meadow must be a world class international venue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Nah it has 4 stands that all look the same.
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
agreed... if only SISU would bring them home....and end this nonsense
Im off to Walsall now with my boy....
PUSB's
Samo
Well-Known Member
I'm no fan of SISU or their methods but I think the simple answer to your question is that ACL/CCC have exploited the club when it was going through a difficult period with no more regard to its future or its fans than SISU have shown.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
so we did pay rent at highfield road then, you really should make your mind up before you start spouting misleading comments in the hope you don't get found out.
Last edited:
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
The point is, it is a venue capable of staging international events, as it has previously demonstrated.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They charged a destitute club a completely unfair rent for 8 years. The end.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Just like we had single players getting paid half of what the rent was. Yet it always seems to come down to the rent to some.
covmark
Well-Known Member
bang on
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yes, we paid players far too much, but that shouldn't hide the fact that rent was too high.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So is meadow lane
It seems that the greater distance from the original post the less accurate is the paraphrased quotation. So, some repetition to provide some clarification.
The sale of HR was c2000. The costs at HR that i quoted as being the same as the 2005 rent were for the last years, not the last year. The agreement to rent the Ricoh was signed in 2003. The rent negotiations between CCFC and ACL took place between 2003 and 2005. The Chairman of CCFC was a director of ACL. There was also another CCFC shareholder/director as director of ACL. It is difficult to understand the suggestion that CCFC were forced to do anything. For the CCFC directors paying the same for the Ricoh as they did for HR was getting more for their money than they had before. They felt that they had done well. The fact that their business was scarily close to catastrophic insolvency all the time was something they lived with. The rent and licence fee were far from the top of their list of attempted economies.
The rent and licence fee payable by CCFC in 2005 was not £1.2m. It was c£948,000.
We can all make brilliant and sensible judgements with the benefit of hindsight: for me, to have rejected the sliding scale rent and licence fee was bone-headed. I thought so, and said so at the time. I still think so.
The sale of HR was c2000. The costs at HR that i quoted as being the same as the 2005 rent were for the last years, not the last year. The agreement to rent the Ricoh was signed in 2003. The rent negotiations between CCFC and ACL took place between 2003 and 2005. The Chairman of CCFC was a director of ACL. There was also another CCFC shareholder/director as director of ACL. It is difficult to understand the suggestion that CCFC were forced to do anything. For the CCFC directors paying the same for the Ricoh as they did for HR was getting more for their money than they had before. They felt that they had done well. The fact that their business was scarily close to catastrophic insolvency all the time was something they lived with. The rent and licence fee were far from the top of their list of attempted economies.
The rent and licence fee payable by CCFC in 2005 was not £1.2m. It was c£948,000.
We can all make brilliant and sensible judgements with the benefit of hindsight: for me, to have rejected the sliding scale rent and licence fee was bone-headed. I thought so, and said so at the time. I still think so.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Fair enough P. I have always highlighted the damage caused by the previous administration as well as the current.
Not clear why the request for a rent reduction circa 2006 was rejected by ACL though.
Not clear why the request for a rent reduction circa 2006 was rejected by ACL though.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It doesn't excuse the rent in the same way the rent doesn't excuse the wages.
The discussion around a sliding scale rent was in 2006. The lease and licence weren't actually signed until March 2006. These discussions were before and after the lease and licence were signed. It was only McGinnity and Hover who were absolutely against a sliding scale rent. They would not believe that it was possible for the Club to be relegated: it was only possible to be promoted. When Hover left and they were stuck with Fletcher there was never a chance that anything remotely sensible would be achieved. What gets overlooked is that it was, and is, important for ACL to have sensible arrangements with all its tenants. It is a pity that the tenants in this case were not sensible.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Today for the first time since 30th April 2005 I went to where HR was and showed my son. Made me really sad.
The Ricoh should never have been built in the first place.
The Ricoh should never have been built in the first place.
Why? Because you said so?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
No. Because it's caused us nothing but grief. A soulless bowl. Still wish we were back there though.
covmark
Well-Known Member
no, because we wouldn't be in this shite state of affairs.
I dont disagree there. Id even buy you a beer in the bar.
We were fucked the minute we were relegated out of the prem.
covmark
Well-Known Member
agreed, then spending 5m on lee Hughes wasn't the wisest move
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Agreed. The fee was just 5 million too much. The club is a basket case and has been for 15 years. Succession of idiotic decisions.
Blimey we agree! There's so much id love to change with ccfc if i could go back in time.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
At least we sold him before he was banged up.