Probably - plus maybe some offices?
£61m of debt wiped out in latest CCFC accounts (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
Probably - plus maybe some offices?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Its worth a discussion but I can't see Wasps handing it over. Think about how much revenue we're talking about, things like stadium naming rights would need to be included. Just can't see Wasps even considering handing a big chunk of that over. At the very least we'd be looking at 100% of revenues generated by CCFC being there, and I doubt we'd even get that and even if we did we'd still be a long way behind other clubs.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The ones on Lockhurst Lane probably, and maybe the rent at Gallagher.
The catch is that non-match day income have to be generated in the football ground complex.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
So, what do we do? Surely it'd take decades for a return on investment on a stadium?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Is that an FFP/SCMP/BDSM thing?
Edit: I remember having this conversation before, did we get to the bottom of what constitutes the "football ground complex" (i.e. does it have to be in the bowl or can it be an attached building)
Last edited:
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Does anyone know how much the club paid to Northampton to get out of Sixfields?
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
Thank you, G. If the Sisu managed funds were transferred to Sconset, I assume that all the ire directed at Sisu should really be aimed at Sconset. Where does JS come into this now? Is she the head honcho of Sconset?
tisza
Well-Known Member
academy fees for higgs trust?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I remember lots and lots of rumours at the time of break clauses (various rumours from one every 7 games to one a season). Knowing Sisu I'd be surprised if they didn't have some to be honest, they were always on about wanting them in the Ricoh deal.
I believe JS is the head of sisu - I have no idea who is what at Sconset.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The huge problem we have is that in starting a new ground project we don't have an old ground to sell off to contribute towards the funding. And of course with the way the retail sector is getting a similar deal to the one we did with Tesco on the Arena 2000 project is near impossible.
The only club I can think of who have been in a similar situation is Brighton and I believe nothing moved forward for them until a benefactor came in and basically agreed to build a new ground out his own pocket. Has anyone else started from nothing and tried to build a ground on the scale we're talking about?
To look at the situation in detail I think you would need more detail than we have. Essentially you'd be looking at comparing paying x amount in rent or finance payments against y in projected revenues. You'd then be able to see at what point, if any, a new stadium is a better option. To use an extreme example if you were paying ACL £100K a year and getting £10K back or you could pay £1m a year for a new ground and get £10m back you'd be better off with a new ground, the fact that its costing you more per year would be outweighed by the increase in revenues but of course the real figures will be nothing like as extreme and without them it's hard to make a judgement.
This is the kind of thing that Fisher needs to be telling us, even without a known location a lot of the detail can be shown allowing fans to take an educated stance.
I still have a feeling we might see a very cheap temporary stadium somewhere like Bermuda in the hope that Wasps can't sustain ACL and SISU can pick it up on the cheap.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Maybe a way forward is for the club to have some kind of preferential rate for renting out parts of the Ricoh, like mates rates or something, then the club could sell that on or put on their own events.
Just trying to think of things that aren't us asking for charity and don't involve a new stadium build.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
With Wasps being a loss making co. I can't seem them giving up any significant revenue to CCFC, can you? After all they have a massive loan to pay off.
Yeah, wouldn't that be a lease cost? If so, I think it would be within the administrative costs.
Come on Godiva you're sharper than that
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Well yes - the naming rights being a case in point. Like sponsorship. CCFC have struggled to get anyone of substance interested in recent years; and Wasps roll into town and have JLR all over them like a tramp with a bag of chips. Wasps appear to be 'the draw'; and therefore they wouldn't share what they think they are earning.
If we wanted access to all of these non-matchday incomes; the football club should have acted with candour when they had the chance. Now, it's only a case of getting 'what's left'. If that's match-day revenues, then that's better than nothing. And that's what we should be discussing with Wasps right now
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Some kind of evidence of the business case for a new ground would put a lot of minds at rest.
Thought you meant the British Overseas Territory then, that would make Sixfields look positively local.
I don't like the idea of us waiting around for someone to fail and us to pick up the pieces, that didn't work out so well last time.
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
I take it then, that even though the Sisu investment funds were transferred to Sconset, Sisu still manage them. Is that correct? If not, I don't see where JS comes into the loop.
I think OSB at some point hinted at something similar ... that the club rented conference facilities for a period and then used it (re-sold) it for events. That could actually be a way to increase the SCMP/FFP budget and make a small profit.
Sadly, I'm not!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It would also give the club an idea of whether we know what we're doing and how much money it'd make before committing to a bigger project like a new stadium. Of course it all depends on preferential treatment from Wasps, but they are on a charm offensive at the moment, probably not a better time to ask.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Aw come on; let's stop pointing to these old accounts to point to Wasps being loss-making. They have a profound change in their business; and it's much more accurate to say they they were loss-making, and now we don't know. As opposed to talking them down as loss-making in the current. They took more in F&B's at the Leinster game than they did in the whole of last season. Let's see how that - and other revenues - pan out in newer accounts before we continually dismiss their finances
It would!
I know they can't (won't) reveal their numbers to the general public, but if only they had a working and trusting relationship with the Trust leadership they could show it to them (after signing a NDA). The Trust could then make a statement that the numbers add up or don't add up. That would be good enough for me.
Last edited:
higher turnover may mean lower levels of losses but debt would still increase. You are of course assuming we will still be pulling in 7000 fans next year. If not turnover will fall so losses may increase unless you cut the playing budget but as we have seen this year smaller playing budget tends to lead to worse team and lower crowds. Investment in the team is required at some stage to turn this around. If we get relegated how many do you think how many people might turn up for Barnet on a Wednesday night.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't even need that personally, aside from my dislike of NDAs and secrecy among fan reps. All I'd need is a statement along the lines of "The cost of the stadium will be paid by X and their relationship to the SBS&L company is Y. Our projections are that it'll take Z years to pay off/we'll increase our revenue by Z over the first 10 years."
The real question for most is how is it financed regardless of what happens once it's built in terms of revenue. Simply saying "it'll be a different company" doesn't help as what we think of as "the club" is several businesses. Would it be Sisu/another third party owned or under the same umbrella as the club? How would the club pay for it? Rent? What would the assurances the club would have about that rent? etc. etc.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
It is actually reasonable to suggest it's not bad news and has positivity surrounding it. It's a start in the correct direction for where they find themselves.
Jockeying and positioning the company so it can move forwards less encumbered is certainly a good start and a target to an eventual exit plan.
We are making the best of trying to be sustainable and a little more success on the pitch could catapult things along quite readily combined with a deal with WASP that benefits both sides.
As far as sponsorship goes WASP get more if the football club is there and on the telly so sharing such revenue streams is not costing them and benefits the football club and WASP. that's just one example. If you have 18k people attending because the club are more successful would you want them to leave or offer them a share in that 'extra' income generation?
As a footnote I still don't think the Ricoh has not sailed for CCFC. WASP as I've said in the past will not sustain themselves on crowds of 6k or so. They need us and a whole lot more. As TM achieves success (with a bit of luck) we will increase revenue and I still think we may end up buying that 250 year lease from WASP if we sit tight!
As for any new stadium? Hmm still think that will be largely a developers cost in combination with retails/housing or the like and we would have a pay to own deal with percentage's lessoning with each year to the developers. Just a thought for those that think in an improving economy that is not feasible.
Jockeying and positioning the company so it can move forwards less encumbered is certainly a good start and a target to an eventual exit plan.
We are making the best of trying to be sustainable and a little more success on the pitch could catapult things along quite readily combined with a deal with WASP that benefits both sides.
As far as sponsorship goes WASP get more if the football club is there and on the telly so sharing such revenue streams is not costing them and benefits the football club and WASP. that's just one example. If you have 18k people attending because the club are more successful would you want them to leave or offer them a share in that 'extra' income generation?
As a footnote I still don't think the Ricoh has not sailed for CCFC. WASP as I've said in the past will not sustain themselves on crowds of 6k or so. They need us and a whole lot more. As TM achieves success (with a bit of luck) we will increase revenue and I still think we may end up buying that 250 year lease from WASP if we sit tight!
As for any new stadium? Hmm still think that will be largely a developers cost in combination with retails/housing or the like and we would have a pay to own deal with percentage's lessoning with each year to the developers. Just a thought for those that think in an improving economy that is not feasible.
tisza
Well-Known Member
it's like les reid not properly quoting the Wasps quote about being "high risk of going bust" actually it was about their ground situation in Wycombe and was "if we stay as we are, losing 3 million a year . outcome high risk of going bust". so they reacted positively to the situation and changed their circumstances.
so sisu try and do a deal with Wasps or get on with building a new stadium. don't sit on your arses waiting for hypothetical situations that may never happen.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No the credit rating at company house shows wasps holdings at the same risk rating as Otium - unless you are saying les Reid writes for company house? Negative equity is £22 million now isn't it?
H
Huckerby
Guest
what the 18 pages is going on here then
skybluedan
Well-Known Member
Why always on a Thursday ?
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Why do you bother posting on our forum?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Credit ratings mean nothing. No more than an indicator. And even less than that if the business model is changing. They take a view on the last set of audited accounts; which can itself be out of date by the time they're filed. I've had what appear to be gilt-edged companies with a brilliant credit rating take my business for £200K; but equally we have some start ups to whom we shouldn't extend a credit line operating successful ledgers in excess of £500K. They really are pointless
