CCFC comments on rent - cov city mad. (3 Viewers)

[stupot07]

Saw this on GMK, surprised no ones already posted it..,,unless they have I've missed



Fisher Clarifies Free Offer From ACL
By CNS via CCLSC
Fisher Says What City Are Paying For

Following the Supporters Consultation Group meeting on Wednesday night at Freehold Street, the following questions were put to Coventry City CEO Tim Fisher for clarification.

Additional Note added post meeting following clarification from Tim Fisher.

Can you add clarity to the ‘Free’ Offer from ACL?

ACL are mixing match day costs and rent.
At Northampton, Rent includes; all stadium related first team match day services including pitch maintenance, utilities, refuse collection and covers the following facilities - the pitch, the stadium, the stadium seating, the changing rooms, hospitality suites and banqueting areas, match day staff facilities, media facilities.

The stadium also provide all catering staff, all grounds men. The licensee (the club) separately provide stewards, crowd doctor, crowd ambulance, player ambulance.

The ACL proposal comprised a license fee of per match plus match day costs, defined as charges to maintain and manage pitch, utilities, waste, hygiene, match day stadium maintenance salaries, statutory service contracts. The total is north of 12K per match. This is, of course, rent/facility fee.

What is the financial justification of playing at Northampton?

The original rationale and premise for Sixfields was the ensuring an ability to fulfil our fixtures. Without this the club would have catastrophically failed. The rationale for Northampton is not financially driven in the short term.

Any return to the Ricoh on an interim rental deal would be very difficult. Notwithstanding, the improper purpose, the un-connected creditor put down the club for a mere 200K monies owed - caused a 20 point loss and threatened the club's very existence.

http://m.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/817366?


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

 

---

[ccfcway]

how come SISU are calling it a "mere £200k" and then on the other hand say "ACL were bleading them dry"

 

[Nick]

It was in the meeting minutes thread

 

[mark82]

how come SISU are calling it a "mere £200k" and then on the other hand say "ACL were bleading them dry"

They were to be fair at 1.2 million a year. That is unsustainable.

 

[mark82]

What is the rent at Sixfields? Anyone know?

 

[mark82]

So the real rent offer in comparable terms to Sixfields (ie same terms all in) is about £300k a year give or take including a couple of cup games.

 

[ccfcway]

They were to be fair at 1.2 million a year. That is unsustainable.

so, pay what you agreed to pay and renegotiate dont not pay and then walk out on the deal you signed

 

[mark82]

so, pay what you agreed to pay and renegotiate dont not pay and then walk out on the deal you signed

I'm not disputing that. But can't deny that rent was slowly killing us.

 

[ccfcway]

and our debt will do the same

 

[magic82ball]

It doesn't matter what the new offer is, it could be completely free with ACL picking up the tab on everything and SISU still wouldn't return. As Fisher said, the decision is not financially driven.

Returning to the Ricoh massively impacts on SISU's long term plan, distressing ACL sufficiently to take ownership of the ground.

 

[mark82]

So you think 1.2 million a year was reasonable ccfcway?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I'm not disputing that. But can't deny that rent was slowly killing us.

The cost of the previously high rent charge was on a par with the amounts we were paying to SISU related companies for management and interest, and far less than we would have paying for average players, so the rent was only a small part of SISU's *ahem* £60m 'investment'. Obviously SISU only want to mention the rent, as the other costs point to their lack of management skills.

 

[magic82ball]

So you think 1.2 million a year was reasonable ccfcway?

What's your point Mark? I don't think anyone agrees this is a sensible figure but what are you getting at?

 

[wingy]

Its percieved we pay £150K. at Sixfields ,Labovitch would not confirm on CWR last night .

Tim Fisher and His Colleague are trying to change the Title of what are matchday Charges ,charges which last year Mr Timothy D Fisher Called matchday Costs ,why Is that ?Why push an Inaccuracy to this level when Its already on tape and In print .

 

[stupot07]

It was in the meeting minutes thread

Oops, I didn't read the majority of that thread.


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

 

[stupot07]

Its percieved we pay £150K. at Sixfields ,Labovitch would not confirm on CWR last night .

Tim Fisher and His Colleague are trying to change the Title of what are matchday Charges ,charges which last year Mr Timothy D Fisher Called matchday Costs ,why Is that ?Why push an Inaccuracy to this level when Its already on tape and In print .

Costs/charges...is there really that much difference?


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

 

[wingy]

I think It revolves around legal aspects or I don't think they'd major on It.
The Supporters Direct in its piece today emphasised this point Including reference to David Conn. If everyone is under threat of Litigation then you can't insist something Is one thing last season but something else this seasons

EDIT. The distinction is between what sisu insist is rent. When they are matches costs

 

[Jack Griffin]

What is the rent at Sixfields? Anyone know?

Nearly 11K per game.

I'm not disputing that. But can't deny that rent was slowly killing us.

Rubbish, it was a fraction of the excessive players salaries, that was the issue that was causing the bulk of the losses. However I agree it was too much, but this has been accepted by all parties for a long time & quoting the £1.2M figure is to paint a picture that hasn't existed for some years now..

What is killing us is taking the club away from its home.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Costs/charges...is there really that much difference?


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

What Wingy says...a cost is what you pay out for something that is obtainable. A charge is a demand. At this moment just subtle change of emphasis but a barrister would likely make something of it in a court of law at some future point to SISUs gain.

 

[stupot07]

Nearly 11K per game.



Rubbish, it was a fraction of the excessive players salaries, that was the issue that was causing the bulk of the losses. However I agree it was too much, but this has been accepted by all parties for a long time & quoting the £1.2M figure is to paint a picture that hasn't existed for some years now..

What is killing us is taking the club away from its home.

Yeah, and that has finally been addressed, didn't go down with our fans though, what with relegation and all that. But when you look at cutting costs and maximising income you look at everything, the rent is no different.

And to say the £1.2m hasn't existed for some years is incorrect. ACL will be getting costs through admin to cover the £1.2m and the negotiation for the first £400k offer was the beginning of this year.


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

 

[SkyblueBazza]

It doesn't matter what the new offer is, it could be completely free with ACL picking up the tab on everything and SISU still wouldn't return. As Fisher said, the decision is not financially driven.

Returning to the Ricoh massively impacts on SISU's long term plan, distressing ACL sufficiently to take ownership of the ground.

Something in your post stuck in my side...& I went back & read TFs apparent statement in the OP. Now if this is an accurate representation of what he actually did say...the bit that got me was "The rationale for Northampton is not financially driven in the short term".
Now maybe it's just my suspicious mind...but does the reference to "short term" worry anyone? Long term movement to Northampton might actually be financially driven!??

 

[Grendel]

Something in your post stuck in my side...& I went back & read TFs apparent statement in the OP. Now if this is an accurate representation of what he actually did say...the bit that got me was "The rationale for Northampton is not financially driven in the short term".
Now maybe it's just my suspicious mind...but does the reference to "short term" worry anyone? Long term movement to Northampton might actually be financially driven!??

No I'm not worried about that at all.

 

[James Smith]

I'm not disputing that. But can't deny that rent was slowly killing us.

The rent was too high not sure anyone is disputing that. but the fact that they didn't try and negotiate it is idiotic.

 

[Nick]

The club did try didn't they but told no?

 

[skybluetony176]

The club did try didn't they but told no?

still, at least they were quick to accept a good rent deal when it was on the table. i don't think people appreciate how close we came to playing home games in Northampton, oh wait.

 

[James Smith]

The club did try didn't they but told no?

From the Trust Q&A they tried under Robinson and got nowhere I suspect because the ACL finances weren't good enough to allow it. They never had anything amounting to a serious discussion under SISU when finances were I suspect better before starting the rent strike.

6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?

ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher. Since SISU bought the club there have been one or two light touch discussions with SISU but nothing that amounted to a serious proposition.

CCFC: Not sure of historic negotiations

7: Is the rent at £400k in League 1 acceptable ?

ACL: Yes

CCFC: Yes [if other accompanying terms are kept to]

 

[Lorksalordy]

The big worry is that it does not even appear to have been considered and just rejected out of hand with an explanation akin to "because we say so". If the finance comparison was even cost neutral it should be a shoe-in solely based on the fact that it would get rid of the travesty of playing away from the city and show some level of consideration for THEIR CUSTOMERS (who seem to be forgotten in all this pointless child like point scoring and spin). Regardless of this match-day costs argument it is blindingly obvious that "north of 12k" would be dwarfed by the increase in turnover with more bums on seats. I keep thinking it cannot get any worse or the outlook any more bleak and the bastards keep surprising me !

 

[play_in_skyblue_stripes]

I really don't know why this thread is continuing. I am so angry with the current owners of the club I supported all my life.

I want SISU out as their actions do not benefit what used to be my football club in my personal opinion.

Their approach is NOT what I want. Its a total disgrace that Coventry City are not playing in the city of Coventry. Coventry City had a contract to play at the Ricoh Arena and they no longer do.

The owners agenda is completely different to my wishes as a Coventry City supporter which is to play in Coventry at the fabulous "Ricoh Arena" .
We have free speech in this country and this right will be upheld.

 

[mark82]

What's your point Mark? I don't think anyone agrees this is a sensible figure but what are you getting at?

That it wasn't a sensible figure. Nothing else. Wasn't this plus matchday costs also?

 

[mark82]

Nearly 11K per game.



Rubbish, it was a fraction of the excessive players salaries, that was the issue that was causing the bulk of the losses. However I agree it was too much, but this has been accepted by all parties for a long time & quoting the £1.2M figure is to paint a picture that hasn't existed for some years now..

What is killing us is taking the club away from its home.

Can't disagree with much of that. NOPM also killing us (I don't & won't go to Sixfields for the record). The football club is on its knees and everyone, including us fans, is complicit.

 

[mark82]

The rent was too high not sure anyone is disputing that. but the fact that they didn't try and negotiate it is idiotic.

As Nick says they did try before withholding rent. That forced ACL to negotiate.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

. The football club is on its knees and everyone, including us fans, is complicit.

Not sure as I agree... constructive vagabonds is what we are.... my money is here... like it has been for the last 35 years every year never wavering.. the owners are the root cause... we the fans are the effect. Very, very different to being complicit.

 

[James Smith]

As Nick says they did try before withholding rent. That forced ACL to negotiate.

I can only go with what each party said on the Trust Q&A

I think it was mentioned that they tried under Robinson and got nowhere which I suspect was because the ACL business was in it's infancy and therefore the finances weren't good enough to allow it. Under SISU they never had anything amounting to a serious discussion with ACL before starting the rent strike. This would have been when finances would I suspect have been better on the ACL side and they may have been happy to make a new offer had anyone made one from SISU.

6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?

ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher. Since SISU bought the club there have been one or two light touch discussions with SISU but nothing that amounted to a serious proposition.

CCFC: Not sure of historic negotiations

7: Is the rent at £400k in League 1 acceptable ?

ACL: Yes

CCFC: Yes [if other accompanying terms are kept to]

 

[dongonzalos]

Something in your post stuck in my side...& I went back & read TFs apparent statement in the OP. Now if this is an accurate representation of what he actually did say...the bit that got me was "The rationale for Northampton is not financially driven in the short term".
Now maybe it's just my suspicious mind...but does the reference to "short term" worry anyone? Long term movement to Northampton might actually be financially driven!??

No he is saying they will fund the loses over the short term.

What he is not admitting is that this is in order to keep the Ricoh empty to try and get it cheap. Which is the only logical explanation for not taking up the free rent offer.

What he is saying us the long term financial driver is building our own stadium.

What he is not explaining and no one pushes him on. Is how does that financially compare to signing a long term rent deal.

Also why they don't offer the full cost of this for the Ricoh which will be better than the proposed new stadium and is inside Coventry and would see the club back in 6 months not a year?

 

[ccfcway]

So you think 1.2 million a year was reasonable ccfcway?

Not at all, but a quick fact.....


At Ricoh..........£15 a ticket x 10,000 x 23 (home games) = £3.45 million
At Sixfields......£15 a ticket x 2000 x 23 (home games) = £690k


Even if the Ricoh were charging £2 million a year, we would still be better off than we are this season !