F and b (13 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

They didn't buy them... only only purchase was Higgs obtaining the 50% share of ACL sold by CCFC.

I get what you're saying but ACL paid for them as part of the lease didn't they, just that we then sold our half on to Higgs.

 

---

[bigfatronssba]

Wouldn't really solve much though would it? And in essence is no different to the proposed cross invoicing.

Either way, great, our turnover is boosted by £1m, that's £600k more we can spend on wages or transfers, but as you would be paying the £1m back to ACL you've basically got to borrow another £600k to cover those wages/transfers so more losses debt to the club.


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

But I thought rent (expenditure) wasn't the issue, only low turnover?

 

[stupot07]

But I thought rent (expenditure) wasn't the issue, only low turnover?

You must have missed the memo which said we're making £m's losses every year. Easily done I suppose.


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

 

[bigfatronssba]

You must have missed the memo which said we're making £m's losses every year. Easily done I suppose.


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

So whats the priority then, Turnover or profit? Because when we get statements such as "Rent isn't the problem" that suggests that profit isn't the issue.

Its contradictions like this to lead people like me to come to the conclusion that Sisu will just keep moving the goalposts whenever a solution to the problem is found.

 

[chiefdave]

You must have missed the memo which said we're making £m's losses every year. Easily done I suppose.

That was always Mutton's point when he was leader of the council wasn't it. Although he never seemed to phrase it well and always made it sound confrontational.

Unless I've misunderstood FFP it is based off revenues not profit so for Fisher and Sepalla to say in their open letter that 60p in every £1 from F&B will be allocated to the team is nonsense. Lets say all the F&B goes to SISU, for every £1 they will have to pay expenses, unless the suggestion is ACL and Compass operate at a loss for the clubs benefit. So out of that remaining 40p in the £ SISU need to cover equipment costs, staff, buy the products in etc.

I know people think there's a huge markup on these types of operation but judging from my experience when I ran a club it London that's far from true. For every £1 coming in around a third went to us, out of that we had to pay rent staff etc. So where is the money to make up the shortfall coming from, will SISU put it in as equity or are they planning to run up the debt? It's a great soundbite for them, essentially if ACL don't give us this the team suffers, but as with many things that come out of SISU it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[stupot07]

That was always Mutton's point when he was leader of the council wasn't it. Although he never seemed to phrase it well and always made it sound confrontational.

Unless I've misunderstood FFP it is based off revenues not profit so for Fisher and Sepalla to say in their open letter that 60p in every £1 from F&B will be allocated to the team is nonsense. Lets say all the F&B goes to SISU, for every £1 they will have to pay expenses, unless the suggestion is ACL and Compass operate at a loss for the clubs benefit. So out of that remaining 40p in the £ SISU need to cover equipment costs, staff, buy the products in etc.

I know people think there's a huge markup on these types of operation but judging from my experience when I ran a club it London that's far from true. For every £1 coming in around a third went to us, out of that we had to pay rent staff etc. So where is the money to make up the shortfall coming from, will SISU put it in as equity or are they planning to run up the debt? It's a great soundbite for them, essentially if ACL don't give us this the team suffers, but as with many things that come out of SISU it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

To be fair dave, some very brief research on the tinternet suggests that pubs and restaurants etc make a c50-65% profit on what they sell, this makes a mockery of ACL/compass 10-12%. If we were able to run our own F&B's we would be making a greater profit margain and more money to meet that 60p in a £1. I'm sure TF said at one of the forums that charlton made c55-60% profit on F&B's.


http://mobile.morningadvertiser.co....y-Wet-led-pubs-GP-falls-below-50#.U8FumYm9LCQ

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090911083037AAz7s2E




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

 

[stupot07]

So whats the priority then, Turnover or profit? Because when we get statements such as "Rent isn't the problem" that suggests that profit isn't the issue.

Its contradictions like this to lead people like me to come to the conclusion that Sisu will just keep moving the goalposts whenever a solution to the problem is found.

The original rent level was a problem, we all acknowledge it was at too high.

The more recent Rent offers were obviously seen as acceptable levels of expenditures. they know it is right and proper to pay rent, they don't get to use the stadium for free. That will be built in to their costings.

They need Access to matchday revenue to both boost their turnover and also to bring profit in that can be redirected in to the clubs running costs. I don't see what is confusing.




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

 

[chiefdave]

To be fair dave, some very brief research on the tinternet suggests that pubs and restaurants etc make a c50-65% profit on what they sell, this makes a mockery of ACL/compass 10-12%. If we were able to run our own F&B's we would be making a greater profit margain and more money to meet that 60p in a £1. I'm sure TF said at one of the forums that charlton made c55-60% profit on F&B's.

You're looking at gross profit not net profit. For FFP (and other accounting and cash-flow reasons) you want to look at total income but for the bottom line you need to look at net profit.

To give you an example at my place out gross profit was just short of 70% but net profit was only just over 30%.

 

[kmj5000]

To be fair dave, some very brief research on the tinternet suggests that pubs and restaurants etc make a c50-65% profit on what they sell, this makes a mockery of ACL/compass 10-12%. If we were able to run our own F&B's we would be making a greater profit margain and more money to meet that 60p in a £1. I'm sure TF said at one of the forums that charlton made c55-60% profit on F&B's.

I
http://mobile.morningadvertiser.co....y-Wet-led-pubs-GP-falls-below-50#.U8FumYm9LCQ

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090911083037AAz7s2E




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

I think you will find that the 60% profit is before overhead and staffing expenses?

 

[bigfatronssba]

The original rent level was a problem, we all acknowledge it was at too high.

The more recent Rent offers were obviously seen as acceptable levels of expenditures. they know it is right and proper to pay rent, they don't get to use the stadium for free. That will be built in to their costings.

They need Access to matchday revenue to both boost their turnover and also to bring profit in that can be redirected in to the clubs running costs. I don't see what is confusing.




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

So why, in principle can a low rent not be negeotiated that incorporates cross invoicing for F & B's?

For example, lets say F & B income was £100k a year, why cannot sisu put forward a proposal where they keep the income of this but pay say £50k extra in rent/matchday costs a year?

That would be fair negotiation would it not? Meeting halfway.

 

[stupot07]

You're looking at gross profit not net profit. For FFP (and other accounting and cash-flow reasons) you want to look at total income but for the bottom line you need to look at net profit.

To give you an example at my place out gross profit was just short of 70% but net profit was only just over 30%.

Fair enough, I'm not an accountant. But clubs make a lot more than ACL's 10-12%.


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

 

[kmj5000]

So why, in principle can a low rent not be negeotiated that incorporates cross invoicing for F & B's?

For example, lets say F & B income was £100k a year, why cannot sisu put forward a proposal where they keep the income of this but pay say £50k extra in rent/matchday costs a year?

That would be fair negotiation would it not? Meeting halfway.

Because SISU will want it all for nothing so they make a
profit out of the deal!

 

[stupot07]

So why, in principle can a low rent not be negeotiated that incorporates cross invoicing for F & B's?

For example, lets say F & B income was £100k a year, why cannot sisu put forward a proposal where they keep the income of this but pay say £50k extra in rent/matchday costs a year?

That would be fair negotiation would it not? Meeting halfway.

What's the point? You expecting them to use the increased turnover to increase the wage bill/transfer budget based on a net increase of £50k?


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

 

[chiefdave]

Fair enough, I'm not an accountant. But clubs make a lot more than ACL's 10-12%.

Has that figure actually been shown in ACLs accounts or was it something that Fisher just threw out as one of his facts? I would be amazed if the club could run F&B at a higher net profit than a company like compass. Its why so many venues make deals with companies like that, they may lose a % of the profit but a lower % of a higher profit is better for the bottom line.

 

[stupot07]

Has that figure actually been shown in ACLs accounts or was it something that Fisher just threw out as one of his facts? I would be amazed if the club could run F&B at a higher net profit than a company like compass. Its why so many venues make deals with companies like that, they may lose a % of the profit but a lower % of a higher profit is better for the bottom line.

It's what ACL told the Sky Blue Trust in the Q and A.


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

 

[chiefdave]

So why, in principle can a low rent not be negeotiated that incorporates cross invoicing for F & B's?

For example, lets say F & B income was £100k a year, why cannot sisu put forward a proposal where they keep the income of this but pay say £50k extra in rent/matchday costs a year

Didn't something like that get suggested by ACL? They would give SISU access to some of their share, cross invoice and setup a meeting with Compass to discuss their side of the deal.

Think is when you get down to it in the grand scheme of things, while having access to as much revenue as possible is of course desirable, when your talking about a 2 year temporary deal and the amounts we are dealing with in F&B they are pretty much irrelevant Certainly not worth staying in Northampton because we can't have them.

 

[chiefdave]

It's what ACL told the Sky Blue Trust in the Q and A.

Which still leaves the question of how would SISU run the F&B as a more efficient operation than a company that specialises in that area?

Just had a look at the Q&A and that shows a net profit of £119,903. Can anyone really look at the amount lost in ticket sales advertising, sponsorship etc and claim the F&B is really the sticking point here?

 

[stupot07]

Which still leaves the question of how would SISU run the F&B as a more efficient operation than a company that specialises in that area?

Just had a look at the Q&A and that shows a net profit of £119,903. Can anyone really look at the amount lost in ticket sales advertising, sponsorship etc and claim the F&B is really the sticking point here?

To be honest, I was coming from it purely from a medium to long term stance rather than a 2 year deal then off to the new stadium.

We don't know whether compass are slapping on a load of management charges, I imagine they would do otherwise why bother getting involved?


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

 

[olderskyblue]

Fair enough, I'm not an accountant. But clubs make a lot more than ACL's 10-12%.


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

At a fans forum, fisher said ACL's 10% nett profit was rubbish and he expected 20%

 

[Jack Griffin]

I think you will find that the 60% profit is before overhead and staffing expenses?

I think you will find stupot is being disingenuous.

 

[martcov]

At a fans forum, fisher said ACL's 10% nett profit was rubbish and he expected 20%

Net profit meaning what Compass should give ACL? Or does Compass make 10% net after paying ACL? Or does Compass make 25-30% net and pay around half of that to ACL ( 12,5% )? Does he want 20% of net profit or 20% of turnover? Any deal should be based on turnover ( that's the only way I have worked with venues ). It is difficult to assess net profit e.g. because you use vehicles and storage all year round for other events. Turnover can easily be proved by till Z reports.

 

[chiefdave]

To be honest, I was coming from it purely from a medium to long term stance rather than a 2 year deal then off to the new stadium.

That's what makes it tricky, if we take SISU at their word they are prepared to return to the Ricoh on a short term deal while the new stadium is built. The stadium should be ready in 2 years as we are 1 year into their 3 year plan. On that basis the whole argument, given that SISU say rent isn't an issue, is over roughly £200K.

Here's an idea I had while walking the dog. Why don't SBT, KCIC, GCBTR and any other group out there speak with SISU, ACL and Compass and see if a F&B sponsor package would be acceptable to all. Get a local business to be F&B sponsor for 2 years, giving the club £200K for the privilege. Great PR for the company who does it as they can spin it as them being responsible for the club coming home. Put together a package that gives them naming rights on all the F&B outlets, put their logo on the pint glasses, cups, napkins etc. Throw in a pitch side board, some scoreboard and program advertising and a bit of hospitality and you've got a decent package.

Compass and ACL should be happy as they get increased revenues by having the club back and don't have to hand any over to SISU. SISU should be happy as they receive the same amount they would if they had all the F&B revenues. And it could all be done with out SISU and ACL really having to work together so the animosity that exists becomes a non issue.