A comparison - Swansea & Ospreys (1 Viewer)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

CCFC are contracted to pay 1.1m rent a year, MASSIVELY above the average for L1 (150k?), some have said we our above average in terms of rent, fair enough, the 400k offered is still 160k above average for Championship clubs, some had said it's a premiership ground etc. and facilities are great etc. we don't use the facilities e.g. Casino so that argument don't wash, attendances wise, we are BELOW average in the championship (last season), so 240k is a fair price.

Now, the comparison to Swansea, who are in the premier league.

Think SISU are bad for not paying rent? Try Swansea + Ospreys, Swansea city council haven't recieved a penny rent since the Liberty Stadium has opened. Why? “The stadium was leased to SSMC under a 50-year lease dated April 22 2005. The basis of the lease is that rent will be payable at 30% of any distribution of profits from SSMC, plus a peppercorn" and no surplus has been declared thus no rent paid.

Adds another dimension to the rent debate :thinking about:

Are SISU THAT bad? If you compare to other leases, CCFC are being ripped off.

I got my facts from here: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/01/07/bitter-liberty-stadium-battle-over-claims-of-design-defects-91466-25543490/

Currently trying to see what MK Dons pay.

 

---

[cloughie]

CCFC are contracted to pay 1.1m rent a year, MASSIVELY above the average for L1 (150k?), some have said we our above average in terms of rent, fair enough, the 400k offered is still 160k above average for Championship clubs, some had said it's a premiership ground etc. and facilities are great etc. we don't use the facilities e.g. Casino so that argument don't wash, attendances wise, we are BELOW average in the championship (last season), so 240k is a fair price.

Now, the comparison to Swansea, who are in the premier league.

Think SISU are bad for not paying rent? Try Swansea + Ospreys, Swansea city council haven't recieved a penny rent since the Liberty Stadium has opened. Why? “The stadium was leased to SSMC under a 50-year lease dated April 22 2005. The basis of the lease is that rent will be payable at 30% of any distribution of profits from SSMC, plus a peppercorn" and no surplus has been declared thus no rent paid.

Adds another dimension to the rent debate :thinking about:


well your first 2 'facts'are incorrect Even according to fishers opinion not a fact it is an average of 170,000. The casino has never been part of any deal other than the casino company capri put in millions for the right to be there.

We are not an average league 1 club the bottom teams only get 2500 attendances we get 10,000 average is about 5,000 so we get double the average income
Double the average league 1 according to fisher figures then it should be 340,000

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

CCFC are contracted to pay 1.1m rent a year, MASSIVELY above the average for L1 (150k?), some have said we our above average in terms of rent, fair enough, the 400k offered is still 160k above average for Championship clubs, some had said it's a premiership ground etc. and facilities are great etc. we don't use the facilities e.g. Casino so that argument don't wash, attendances wise, we are BELOW average in the championship (last season), so 240k is a fair price.

Now, the comparison to Swansea, who are in the premier league.

Think SISU are bad for not paying rent? Try Swansea + Ospreys, Swansea city council haven't recieved a penny rent since the Liberty Stadium has opened. Why? “The stadium was leased to SSMC under a 50-year lease dated April 22 2005. The basis of the lease is that rent will be payable at 30% of any distribution of profits from SSMC, plus a peppercorn" and no surplus has been declared thus no rent paid.

Adds another dimension to the rent debate :thinking about:


well your first 2 'facts'are incorrect Even according to fishers opinion not a fact it is an average of 170,000. The casino has never been part of any deal other than the casino company capri put in millions for the right to be there.

We are not an average league 1 club the bottom teams only get 2500 attendances we get 10,000 average is about 5,000 so we get double the average income
Double the average league 1 according to fisher figures then it should be 340,000

I said we DON'T use the casino etc.

I was out 20k on the average rent - don't split hairs, I also put a ? Because I weren't 100%

We get average attendances in championship, so no, 240k.

Interesting you don't comment on the Swansea situation :jerkit: :thinking about: who have paid... NO RENT, and they ground share with Ospreys.

If you compare to other rates teams pay, we are getting mugged! But you support that - cool, but don't pretend you want what's best for CCFC, it's clear you feel ACL > CCFC rather than vice versa.

 

[cloughie]

I said we DON'T use the casino etc.

I was out 20k on the average rent - don't split hairs, I also put a ? Because I weren't 100%

We get average attendances in championship, so no, 240k.

Interesting you don't comment on the Swansea situation :jerkit: :thinking about: who have paid... NO RENT, and they ground share with Ospreys.

Just to let you know pike we are in league 1 not the championship

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Just to let you know pike we are in league 1 not the championship

I know - I said in the championship, we get average attendances, even put in brackets last season for good measure :jerkit:

11/12 season: 15th in average attendance league, below AVERAGE, average rate for rent in Championship - 240k, we're contracted to 1.1m a year, seriously, ACL are taking the piss, they know it, hence why they so readily dropped the rate. As we can see, 400k with money owed from the 10 months we didn't pay is TOO MUCH.

 

[cloughie]

I know - I said in the championship, we get average attendances, even put in brackets last season for good measure :jerkit:

you should stop doing that or you will go blind and stop comparing us with the championship we ain't in it, go ask uncle arthur

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

you should stop doing that or you will go blind and stop comparing us with the championship we ain't in it, go ask uncle arthur

If I compare to L1 it strengthens MY argument, I compared to Championship to weaken your argument.

I'll compare to L1 - no more than 200k because we are 3rd in average attendances league but not in the championship. And we get 5k (min) less fans each week. Therefore, SISU are being reasonable - by your logic.

Facts can be a bastard.

 

[SBT]

some had said it's a premiership ground etc. and facilities are great etc. we don't use the facilities e.g. Casino so that argument don't wash , attendances wise, we are BELOW average in the championship (last season), so 240k is a fair price.

The facilities that we DO use (corporate boxes, hospitality etc) are still first-class revenue generators - or at least, they would be if anyone used them - and that's what we're paying for the privilege to use. It's ridiculous how superior they are to other clubs in this division, so comparing them doesn't make sense - they don't magically become less valuable just because the team's been mis-managed.

Attendances is also a red herring, a bit like trying to negotiate down your rent because you don't intend on using your house much. Again, it doesn't magically make the facilities you're paying for any less valuable.

The only reason ACL need to consider moving on the rent is because they're not likely to get another "anchor tenant" to replace us - but rest assured, any deal to help us out now will be paid back twofold when we're out of this mess and making money from the stadium.

The crucial difference between us and Swansea is that their stadium project was instigated by the council as part of a regeneration project. They were never going to hold Swansea City FC over a barrel for a project the club didn't start in the first place. Meanwhile our council only got involved to bail out our own project when it ran out of cash. The deal they offered might have been tough, but the council didn't need the trouble, and we didn't have any other choice at the time - you can thank the owners back then for that piece of negotiation brilliance.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The facilities that we DO use (corporate boxes, hospitality etc) are still first-class revenue generators - or at least, they would be if anyone used them - and that's what we're paying for the privilege to use. It's ridiculous how superior they are to other clubs in this division, so comparing them doesn't make sense - they don't magically become less valuable just because the team's been mis-managed.

Attendances is also a red herring, a bit like trying to negotiate down your rent because you don't intend on using your house much. Again, it doesn't magically make the facilities you're paying for any less valuable.

The only reason ACL need to consider moving on the rent is because they're not likely to get another "anchor tenant" to replace us - but rest assured, any deal to help us out now will be paid back twofold when we're out of this mess and making money from the stadium.

The crucial difference between us and Swansea is that their stadium project was instigated by the council as part of a regeneration project. They were never going to hold Swansea City FC over a barrel for a project the club didn't start in the first place. Meanwhile our council only got involved to bail out our own project when it ran out of cash. The deal they offered might have been tough, but the council didn't need the trouble, and we didn't have any other choice at the time - you can thank the owners back then for that piece of negotiation brilliance.

Swansea also have top class facilities - good ground Swansea have.

In another thread, it was suggested the council coined the idea to build a new 50k stadium with retractable pitch + roof. However, I don't really know, I didn't have a clue in 1999/00 as I was 5/6 at the time.

 

[wingy]

The facilities that we DO use (corporate boxes, hospitality etc) are still first-class revenue generators - or at least, they would be if anyone used them - and that's what we're paying for the privilege to use. It's ridiculous how superior they are to other clubs in this division, so comparing them doesn't make sense - they don't magically become less valuable just because the team's been mis-managed.

Attendances is also a red herring, a bit like trying to negotiate down your rent because you don't intend on using your house much. Again, it doesn't magically make the facilities you're paying for any less valuable.

The only reason ACL need to consider moving on the rent is because they're not likely to get another "anchor tenant" to replace us - but rest assured, any deal to help us out now will be paid back twofold when we're out of this mess and making money from the stadium.

The crucial difference between us and Swansea is that their stadium project was instigated by the council as part of a regeneration project. They were never going to hold Swansea City FC over a barrel for a project the club didn't start in the first place. Meanwhile our council only got involved to bail out our own project when it ran out of cash. The deal they offered might have been tough, but the council didn't need the trouble, and we didn't have any other choice at the time - you can thank the owners back then for that piece of negotiation brilliance.

In fact I believe the current Govt Have introduced legislation that people who reside in social housing or rely on housing benefit ,will now pay a surcharge per room unoccupied or only pay a certain level of benenfit if your property rental sits above a set criteria.

I guess if its good enough for the Govt ,it must be goosd enough for ACL.

 

[SBT]

Swansea also have top class facilities - good ground Swansea have.

In another thread, it was suggested the council coined the idea to build a new 50k stadium with retractable pitch + roof. However, I don't really know, I didn't have a clue in 1999/00 as I was 5/6 at the time.

Swansea have great facilities (probably, I've never been), but the council was paying all along, and that's reflected in their incredibly favourable rent deal. Swansea City FC never had the money to pay for it in the first place, whereas Coventry, of course, famously did because of, y'know, England hosting the 2006 World Cup, and ITV Digital and all that. The only possible thing that could go wrong would be if we ran out of money and had to go cap in hand to a local govt that didn't really care and would only get involved if it was worth their while, and then......oh. Whoops.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

In fact I believe the current Govt Have introduced legislation that people who reside in social hosing or rely on housing benefit ,will now pay a surcharge per room unoccupied or only pay a certain level of benenfit if your property rental sits above a set criteria.

I guess if its good enough for the Govt ,it must be goosd enough for ACL.

The analogy of rent of 1 person of a house is completely different to the situation of ACL v SISU, SISU are a big corporation - they get away with shit, ordinary people don't. Councils whore themselves out to corporations.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Swansea have great facilities (probably, I've never been), but the council was paying all along, and that's reflected in their incredibly favourable rent deal. Swansea City FC never had the money to pay for it in the first place, whereas Coventry, of course, famously did because of, y'know, England hosting the 2006 World Cup, and ITV Digital and all that. The only possible thing that could go wrong would be if we ran out of money and had to go cap in hand to a local govt that didn't really care and would only get involved if it was worth their while, and then......oh. Whoops.

The main point I'm getting a there in this thread is, the council want more rent, Swansea nor Ospreys pay rent or their ground (similar to the RICOH), we're contracted to 1.1m rent, Swansea are in the prem, we are in L1, there's the facts. We deserve lower rent. 240k is fair.

 

[SBT]

The main point I'm getting a there in this thread is, the council want more rent, Swansea nor Ospreys pay rent or their ground (similar to the RICOH), we're contracted to 1.1m rent, Swansea are in the prem, we are in L1, there's the facts. We deserve lower rent. 240k is fair.

Your facts are right, your logic is wrong. Both clubs "deserve" to pay whatever they agreed to pay. Yeah, I think we should pay less than we're paying now, but only because there's no other option, not because it's "fair".

 

[wingy]

The analogy of rent of 1 person of a house is completely different to the situation of ACL v SISU, SISU are a big corporation - they get away with shit, ordinary people don't. Councils whore themselves out to corporations.

Of course its different .But as I said ,how do you square it when you've started a thread re ; your socialist principals ,that as you say acorporation getting away with shit .

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Of course its different .But as I said ,how do you square it when you've started a thread re ; your socialist principals ,that as you say acorporation getting away with shit .

I haven't started a thread on my socialist principles, I merely stated I was a socialist, if your referring to the thread about the monarchy, I don't think we sould have ruled by a blood line, that's not necessarily socialist (all socialists agree with that stance) but being a republican in this sense doesn't tie to down politically, liberals support the view as well as some conservatives.

I live in a time where MOD£RN (didn't look right in non caps) Football is rotten, corrupt and needs radical change, however, I cannot influence it, i can only adhere to it and I have to judge it in the context of the situation, that's where my conclusions are drawn from.

Football is a People's game that has been taken away from the People.

If I ever had a chance to change football - it would look totally different, better and fairer.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Your facts are right, your logic is wrong. Both clubs "deserve" to pay whatever they agreed to pay. Yeah, I think we should pay less than we're paying now, but only because there's no other option, not because it's "fair".

SISU didn't agree the rent in the first place.

Serious question, do you think ACL would want to renegotiate if we paid rent? I'm unsure, I think ACL have been pushed to the negotiating table because of radical measures - if it works great.

If the council want Swansea to pay more rent - they can, they can try doing it without radical ways, but what if SCAFC + ORFC take the piss? Radical action would be needed - I will give you SISU have skipped ahead to radical action, but they have and I might work. If it's good for CCFC, it's good for me.

 

[Moscowskyblue]

bilge

SISU didn't agree the rent in the first place.

Serious question, do you think ACL would want to renegotiate if we paid rent? I'm unsure, I think ACL have been pushed to the negotiating table because of radical measures - if it works great.

If the council want Swansea to pay more rent - they can, they can try doing it without radical ways, but what if SCAFC + ORFC take the piss? Radical action would be needed - I will give you SISU have skipped ahead to radical action, but they have and I might work. If it's good for CCFC, it's good for me.

Of course ACL have been pushed to the negotiating table, by a company that bought the club and agreed to abide by the conditions set. All of this was done after undergoing due diligence. It is not the fault of ACL that CCFC got relegated and it is laughable that you think it is ok for the club to renege on its responsibilities without recourse. CCFC will potentially take down a company that assisted in paying for the stadium when they no longer had the means to do so.
As for this Swansea scenario it is a red herring, so is league 1 average or championship average rents. It is irrelevant and has no bearing on the contract agreement with ACL that was agreed and signed.
CCFC should pay what it owes, agree to the overly reasonable terms offered and get on with playing football. What we must not do is lose sight of the fact that CCFC are the jeopardising its own future and that of a charity by refusing to meet its contracted obligations, and we would be kicking and screaming if another body was doing that to us.

 

[Diehard Si]

I'm sure waggot said we have one of the highest wage budgets in league 1. It surely weakens our argument that we must pay an average league 1 rent therefore.

Our attendances are also above average.
The stadium is certainly above average, and the Council stepped in to help the club out.

 

[Black6Osprey]

I think if you look into it that its a case of anything goes on the rent front. Man City £3M per year, Ipswich council wanted £110k per year( I believe they agreed £30k in the end accordingly to Alan Brazil), Swansea £0, Hull also have only payed roughly £5k per year, Colchester £300k, Walsall £470k (ouch). Its all over the place.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I'm sure waggot said we have one of the highest wage budgets in league 1. It surely weakens our argument that we must pay an average league 1 rent therefore.

Our attendances are also above average.
The stadium is certainly above average, and the Council stepped in to help the club out.

That's why I brought in the championship angle, we're above average in L1, however, below average in the championship, therefore, logic would say rent should be between 170k-240k?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Of course ACL have been pushed to the negotiating table, by a company that bought the club and agreed to abide by the conditions set. All of this was done after undergoing due diligence. It is not the fault of ACL that CCFC got relegated and it is laughable that you think it is ok for the club to renege on its responsibilities without recourse. CCFC will potentially take down a company that assisted in paying for the stadium when they no longer had the means to do so.
As for this Swansea scenario it is a red herring, so is league 1 average or championship average rents. It is irrelevant and has no bearing on the contract agreement with ACL that was agreed and signed.
CCFC should pay what it owes, agree to the overly reasonable terms offered and get on with playing football. What we must not do is lose sight of the fact that CCFC are the jeopardising its own future and that of a charity by refusing to meet its contracted obligations, and we would be kicking and screaming if another body was doing that to us.

You're saying it's laughable to think it's to go renegade on ACL, but I'll be laughing when we get our own way - which we will.

If you compare to the newer grounds that have been built: Hull, Swansea, then we should have an agreement that is similar to those 2 teams, who are in leagues above us, and have been better than us for a long, long time. There're people on here demanded we spend a bit of money in the transfer market, but how can we compete when we are contracted to 100k a month, basically an Adam Barton every month!

Just because it's contracted, doesn't mean it's right or fair. It's extortionate and the CCFC are being mugged off by ACL, but many CCFC fans think it's ok to pay the rent that has drove us down since the RICOH was built (not the only factor but a leading factor). This is a struggle for CCFC's very survival and many fans have turned their back.

Anyone who dismisses the fact that Hull, Swansea, Ipswich pay considerably less (or in Ipswich's cases, none for years, SISU that bad!? :thinking about: ) as irrelevant, it's highly relevant, all 3 teams are wealthier than us, and had more success than us in recent times.

 

[Sky Blues]

CCFC are contracted to pay 1.1m rent a year, MASSIVELY above the average for L1 (150k?), some have said we our above average in terms of rent, fair enough, the 400k offered is still 160k above average for Championship clubs, some had said it's a premiership ground etc. and facilities are great etc. we don't use the facilities e.g. Casino so that argument don't wash, attendances wise, we are BELOW average in the championship (last season), so 240k is a fair price.

Now, the comparison to Swansea, who are in the premier league.

Think SISU are bad for not paying rent? Try Swansea + Ospreys, Swansea city council haven't recieved a penny rent since the Liberty Stadium has opened. Why? “The stadium was leased to SSMC under a 50-year lease dated April 22 2005. The basis of the lease is that rent will be payable at 30% of any distribution of profits from SSMC, plus a peppercorn" and no surplus has been declared thus no rent paid.

Adds another dimension to the rent debate :thinking about:

Are SISU THAT bad? If you compare to other leases, CCFC are being ripped off.

I got my facts from here: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...over-claims-of-design-defects-91466-25543490/

Currently trying to see what MK Dons pay.

Part of the reason they are paying no rent might have something to do with the stadium being paid for through land sales. As the council spokesman, in the article you drew your facts from, states: “The cost of building the stadium was funded principally by the sale of land in the area and smaller amounts from other sources, including a grant from the Football Foundation." Maybe there is no mortgage to pay off there?

By the way, if you're interested in the costs involved in running a 20,000 seater stadium, here are the accounts for the SSMC (Swansea's equivalent of ACL) in the years 2008/09 (left) and 2009/10 (right):
Figures in £ (except the last two I guess)
Total Income 2,763,747 2,388,093
Cost of sales -691,090 -594,972
Other operating costs -1,865,105 -1,833,005
Other income 74,495 30,555
Taxation on profit on ordinary activities -12,461 0
Profit (loss for year) 269,586 -9,329
Profit/loss brought forward -675,878 -406,292
Profit/Loss carried forward -406,292 -415,621
Total Use 669006 559879

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Part of the reason they are paying no rent might have something to do with the stadium being paid for through land sales. As the council spokesman, in the article you drew your facts from, states: “The cost of building the stadium was funded principally by the sale of land in the area and smaller amounts from other sources, including a grant from the Football Foundation." Maybe there is no mortgage to pay off there?

By the way, if you're interested in the costs involved in running a 20,000 seater stadium, here are the accounts for the SSMC (Swansea's equivalent of ACL) in the years 2008/09 (left) and 2009/10 (right):
Figures in £ (except the last two I guess)
Total Income 2,763,747 2,388,093
Cost of sales -691,090 -594,972
Other operating costs -1,865,105 -1,833,005
Other income 74,495 30,555
Taxation on profit on ordinary activities -12,461 0
Profit (loss for year) 269,586 -9,329
Profit/loss brought forward -675,878 -406,292
Profit/Loss carried forward -406,292 -415,621
Total Use 669006 559879

Thank you, for the facts.

I understand the situation is slightly different, but my point here is that CCFC are paying 1.1/1.2m more than a premiership club. Their council wants them to pay more rent.

If we put it into context, we pay nearly half what Man City do for a 48,000 seater stadium - oh and they're the richest team in the world. The council are ripping us off!

How can anyone justify ACL's rent? Reality is, we have no money, we can't afford, CCFC is indispensable to the Arena Park, we hold the cards, furthermore, if we compare ourselves to team in the championship and prem - ACL should have sympathy for CCFC.

Tbf, Walsall and Colchester should also go renegade IMO.

 

[Sky Blues]

Thank you, for the facts.

I understand the situation is slightly different, but my point here is that CCFC are paying 1.1/1.2m more than a premiership club. Their council wants them to pay more rent.

If we put it into context, we pay nearly half what Man City do for a 48,000 seater stadium - oh and they're the richest team in the world. The council are ripping us off!

I see where you are coming from but I think it is a case of each club facing different circumstances and that comparing rents on some scale of SISU's choosing is not practical. ACL have offered a substantial reduction. I'd like to see SISU come to the table now rather than talking about moving to Irthlingborough or wherever.

 

[Sky Blues]

How can anyone justify ACL's rent? Reality is, we have no money, we can't afford, CCFC is indispensable to the Arena Park, we hold the cards, furthermore, if we compare ourselves to team in the championship and prem - ACL should have sympathy for CCFC.

I'm going to take a rough stab at this but if anyone can help me out (OSB?), please do so. According to OSB, ACL took out a loan to pay for the £21million lease on the stadium. He states: - "Lease premium was financed by loan from Yorkshire Bank. 31/05/11 that loan stood at £16.2m (and has reduced since to an estimate of 15.6m). ACL pay interest at 1.265% abover LIBOR (0.5% approx) - pretty decent rate when you consider a lot of business mortgages currently."

Now I'm not certain how you calculate these things, but using the metaphorical "back of a fag packet" and assuming the £15.6million estimate was for 31/05/12, then that suggests ACL has paid down £600,000 of the mortgage in a year plus interest. Then you have to add in the other expenditure on a stadium (for example, is there a sinking fund for repairs? I think this is £200,000 a year for SSMC, what is it at ACL? I'm going to guess CCFC don't pay it or we'd have heard Tim Fisher adding it into the sums the club pays to ACL). Already we are getting quite a substantial bill...

What I am saying is without knowing what ACL's books look like I cannot blindly accept that ACL are "ripping off" CCFC.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I'm going to take a rough stab at this but if anyone can help me out (OSB?), please do so. According to OSB, ACL took out a loan to pay for the £21million lease on the stadium. He states: - "Lease premium was financed by loan from Yorkshire Bank. 31/05/11 that loan stood at £16.2m (and has reduced since to an estimate of 15.6m). ACL pay interest at 1.265% abover LIBOR (0.5% approx) - pretty decent rate when you consider a lot of business mortgages currently."

Now I'm not certain how you calculate these things, but using the metaphorical "back of a fag packet" and assuming the £15.6million estimate was for 31/05/12, then that suggests ACL has paid down £600,000 of the mortgage in a year plus interest. Then you have to add in the other expenditure on a stadium (for example, is there a sinking fund for repairs? I think this is £200,000 a year for SSMC, what is it at ACL? I'm going to guess CCFC don't pay it or we'd have heard Tim Fisher adding it into the sums the club pays to ACL). Already we are getting quite a substantial bill...

What I am saying is without knowing what ACL's books look like I cannot blindly accept that ACL are "ripping off" CCFC.

Thy are, we've paid 6.7m of rent (owed 7.7), too much, either way, the debt will paid, just a longer time, 1.2m a year is too much and puts the survival of CCFC very much at risk.

 

[blueflint]

you miss the point somehow sisu knew the rent situation when they took over should have sorted that then they owe pay up or shut up

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It wasn't in the master plan to be where we are, the expectations was to get promoted ASAP, so therefore, the rent wasn't an issue at 1st. Now it is, (for some time actually) we have to do something about it, for the survival of CCFC.

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

Correct..so what you do is negotiate, that's good business practice you do not stop paying your debts, that's breach of contract.
As you quite rightly point out SISU got themselves into this mess and they have known about it for sometime, it's their own fault so they should stop blaming everyone else for their poor business management and practice.

 

[cloughie]

Join Date Jul 2012Posts 985
103 Like Received In 78 Posts

It wasn't in the master plan to be where we are, the expectations was to get promoted ASAP




What a joke you really think they had a master plan well just like the competent business leaders they are they didn't have a plan B,C or d

MASTER PLAN DESCRIBES ALL CORNERS COVERED

It all sounds just about as realistic as your masterplan

Thankfully you have no input into it


​

 

[cloughie]

If I compare to L1 it strengthens MY argument, I compared to Championship to weaken your argument.

I'll compare to L1 - no more than 200k because we are 3rd in average attendances league but not in the championship. And we get 5k (min) less fans each week. Therefore, SISU are being reasonable - by your logic.

Facts can be a bastard.

You should try using them and not the sisu propaganda facts you are stupid enough to believe and spout

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You should try using them and not the sisu propaganda facts you are stupid enough to believe and spout

You say I'm stupid to believe in SISU propaganda... A) I haven't spouted any SISU facts B) I'm comparing our rent to others.

Fact is, we pay 1.2m rent, or was that made up by SISU :thinking about: fact, Swansea don't pay rent, we pay 1.2m, fact, we pay just under half the rent THE RICHEST TEAM IN WORLD, fact, we pay more rent than most championship. Fact, we pay 960k more than average championship club's rent, fact, we pay 1.03m over L1.

All facts, no 'propaganda' here, this is where I have drawn my conclusions from. If only you put CCFC over ACL. But if CCFC cease to exist, good for you, I won't be happy that's for sure.

 

[The CableGuy]

It wasn't in the master plan to be where we are

And who's fault is that?

Oh yeah - SISU and the previous boards of CCFC.

 

[cloughie]

You say I'm stupid to believe in SISU propaganda... A) I haven't spouted any SISU facts B) I'm comparing our rent to others.

Fact is, we pay 1.2m rent, or was that made up by SISU :thinking about: fact, Swansea don't pay rent, we pay 1.2m, fact, we pay just under half the rent THE RICHEST TEAM IN WORLD, fact, we pay more rent than most championship. Fact, we pay 960k more than average championship club's rent, fact, we pay 1.03m over L1.

All facts, no 'propaganda' here, this is where I have drawn my conclusions from. If only you put CCFC over ACL. But if CCFC cease to exist, good for you, I won't be happy that's for sure.

We are paying no rent
But according to you we should pay £ 1.2 million then less £ 1.03 million over the odds equals £197,00
So if that is going figure for a league 1 team, and you seem to change your 'facts' like the wind, the other day it was £150,00, to suit whatever you bluster on about, well only 1 subject really
As we have a better facility than any L1 team and have twice the amount of the average gate in L1 maybe be should pay pro rata and according to your figures ( on this day) that would be £394,000