Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Nope. It's plain speak acknowledging the age-old wisdom 'you can't educate pork'
Thespian speak for "I know you are correct but I'm going to argue the same point again and again and again just as I did when I defended Andy thorn"
Nope. It's plain speak acknowledging the age-old wisdom 'you can't educate pork'
Tell you what Rob, dear chap; seriously, it'd have been better for us all if SISU had bought the Higgs share in ACL when it was reported they were on the table. Then seen what was possible with the council.
Now, with decent accounts from ACL such as those released last week, their divergence and swollen turnover - and I hence 'attractiveness' - makes an already impossible situation a touch more difficult. If indeed, that's possible....
Swollen turnover indeed, reduced profits though.
The Olympics, as I think i said sometime ago when some were going on about how many millions that ACL would make of it, it appears ran at a loss.
The old business adage applies, Turnover for vanity, profit for sanity.
Their first set of accounts without their 'anchor tenant' LS; and you're quibbling as the margins are squeezed? Can I remind you how many people on here danced with schoolgirlish delight at the prospect of a decimated set of accounts without CCFC? And imagine the 'total' worth of an entity with ACL's business, and CCFC's businesses combined. That's the point I was making, it's significantly higher now than once it would have been at the negiotiating table.
I agree on the latter, expect when you're growing a business horizontally. Increase turnover to get a better utilisation, which means you can attract subsequent business as your fixed costs are spread over a greater number of events. That'll produce subsequent profitability, as it should sit a year or so behind the turnover result
I agree on the latter, expect when you're growing a business horizontally. Increase turnover to get a better utilisation, which means you can attract subsequent business as your fixed costs are spread over a greater number of events. That'll produce subsequent profitability, as it should sit a year or so behind the turnover result
Turnover £14,490,703 compared to 7,782,519 in 2012
Bottom line is a profit of 775,465 compared to 1,086,886 in 2012
Did they sell the casino for over £2 million? Is the proceeds of that sale in these figures?
That increased turnover though pretty much down to the one off event of the Olympics, imagine turnover for the following year will be much reduced, though hopefully their profit will have risen.
They claim an element of swings and roundabouts with the issue of the accounts: 'Whilst the 2012 Olympics raised the profile of the Arena, city and region, it restricted normal trading for the three months between June and August 2012 significantly. Trading would have been even stronger if not for this constraint.'
Really? Then surely in previous years(noting that no football between mid-May and Mid-August) the turnover should have been even higher than it was in the Olympic years accounts?
Got to say it doesn't sound that likely.
They claim an element of swings and roundabouts with the issue of the accounts: 'Whilst the 2012 Olympics raised the profile of the Arena, city and region, it restricted normal trading for the three months between June and August 2012 significantly. Trading would have been even stronger if not for this constraint.'
Really? Then surely in previous years(noting that no football between mid-May and Mid-August) the turnover should have been even higher than it was in the Olympic years accounts?
Got to say it doesn't sound that likely.
The accounts just produced reflected the position ACL's management projected some time ago. What basis do you have for doubting their projections now? I am not saying they have always acted perfectly, but I can't see why you would cast aspersions upon their projections?
Do the accounts recognise that the raising of the Ricoh's profile may have lead to stronger trading post Olympics?
Not that i noticed in OSB's dissection of them, merely that the Olympics restricted normal trading for 3 months.
Can you please stop talking about ACL and the Arena . We have moved on and building our new stadium Sisu not me
Does that mean you accept the motives for the move to Northampton?
Can you please stop talking about ACL and the Arena . We have moved on and building our new stadium Sisu not me
I don't understand why people keep coming out with that "We have moved on rubbish" didn't Labovich say not a couple of weeks ago that the Ricoh was the "Preferred Option" does that sound like they have moved on to you?
I don't understand why people keep coming out with that "We have moved on rubbish" didn't Labovich say not a couple of weeks ago that the Ricoh was the "Preferred Option" does that sound like they have moved on to you?
The point is, if it's the preferred option, make a fucking bid!
And round we go again!
The point is, if it's the preferred option, make a fucking bid!
Honestly, I think most are just sick of it all. We want the Ricoh, Sisu won't pay for it so let's move on. We've got better things to do.
you are right of course, but Tim says we have moved on the other clueless twat says we want the Ricoh, then Tim is building his new stadium. I wonder why its difficult to believe anything any more. If they want the Ricoh make a bloody offer instead of going round and round with all this legal bollocks. Fucking imbeciles. Its so bad Im saying Id take relegation to get rid of them. Cant believe it myself that Id say such a thing. But I would take to offer like a shot. How much longer do you think people will put up with this charade - and for what - because two groups of idiots cant manage a conversation without falling out. The football has become an irrelevant sideshow - and still some defend the fuckwits involved in this.I don't understand why people keep coming out with that "We have moved on rubbish" didn't Labovich say not a couple of weeks ago that the Ricoh was the "Preferred Option" does that sound like they have moved on to you?
you are right of course, but Tim says we have moved on the other clueless twat says we want the Ricoh, then Tim is building his new stadium. I wonder why its difficult to believe anything any more. If they want the Ricoh make a bloody offer instead of going round and round with all this legal bollocks. Fucking imbeciles. Its so bad Im saying Id take relegation to get rid of them. Cant believe it myself that Id say such a thing. But I would take to offer like a shot. How much longer do you think people will put up with this charade - and for what - because two groups of idiots cant manage a conversation without falling out. The football has become an irrelevant sideshow - and still some defend the fuckwits involved in this.
I agree with your sentiment however I am in no position to make a bid for the Arena why don't you ask the Club or better yet get the Trust too!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure the Trust fighting fund runs into the tens of millions to be honest
Sorry, was talking to the club for that sentence.
I don't disagree with that I am not sure anyone is defending Sisu, the point of my post was that quite a few people use the quote "We've moved on" in a petulant manner and for what reason other than to be petulant?
I don't doubt that Sisu and the Club consider the Ricoh first choice, they'd be stupid otherwise, why won't they make an offer is it pending on the JR? Perhaps, the Club has previously discussed the chances of getting two independent valuations done to determine a price, has this been looked into? Has anyone spoken to ACL regarding it? Is anyone from the Council or ACL even willing to consider it?
It's not a defence of Sisu but there are a lot of questions to answer, but maybe Sisu should go out and bid what they feel the Ricoh is worth and then when it gets rejected because it's nowhere nears CCC/ACL's valuations some on here can cream themselves over the fact that Sisu were trying to purchase the Ricoh on the cheap or that they bid so low that they knew ACL/CCC would reject, (any reason you want please insert here).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wasnt accusing you of defending SISU - you seem pretty balanced in your views and are at least willing to argue a point. The JR doesnt have to proceed - up to SISU. Independent valuations is nonsense from the SISU script - they must have a clue what its worth and have had opportunities in the past to buy their share, so make that offer. Already pissed a few million away this year that could have gone towards itI don't disagree with that I am not sure anyone is defending Sisu, the point of my post was that quite a few people use the quote "We've moved on" in a petulant manner and for what reason other than to be petulant?
I don't doubt that Sisu and the Club consider the Ricoh first choice, they'd be stupid otherwise, why won't they make an offer is it pending on the JR? Perhaps, the Club has previously discussed the chances of getting two independent valuations done to determine a price, has this been looked into? Has anyone spoken to ACL regarding it? Is anyone from the Council or ACL even willing to consider it?
It's not a defence of Sisu but there are a lot of questions to answer, but maybe Sisu should go out and bid what they feel the Ricoh is worth and then when it gets rejected because it's nowhere nears CCC/ACL's valuations some on here can cream themselves over the fact that Sisu were trying to purchase the Ricoh on the cheap or that they bid so low that they knew ACL/CCC would reject, (any reason you want please insert here).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The only way forward is for SISU to go as they have lost too many supporters
Rights and wrongs of it all aside. I think this is an important point. Even if they do pull it around somehow, there's a significant portion of our fan base for whom they're spoiled goods. There's always going to be that drag to any positive work they can do compared to other potential owners.
I don't disagree with that I am not sure anyone is defending Sisu, the point of my post was that quite a few people use the quote "We've moved on" in a petulant manner and for what reason other than to be petulant?
But they are not simply being petulant, are they? Can I quote Tim Fisher to you - SISU's appointed CEO: 'the club has now moved on and is making its plans to play in its wholly-owned stadium'
So, surely, people are quoting directly from one of the main protagonists in this farce?
But they are not simply being petulant, are they? Can I quote Tim Fisher to you - SISU's appointed CEO: 'the club has now moved on and is making its plans to play in its wholly-owned stadium'
So, surely, people are quoting directly from one of the main protagonists in this farce?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?