How exactly are we going to be able afford to buy another ground ????????????? then build a new stadium on it ????????? when we cant afford to pay the wages of a couple of decent loan players ??????????? - reality check please
- buying half the shares in ACL will have no effect on the rent payable ........ if you bought shares in Barclays would you expect your bank charges to come down, answer no
- I assume that all those clamouring for a rent reduction would be happy if rent went up in the fantasy of us being promoted ? - no ? so why think rents should go down if relegated?
- the club pays for the use of the stadium not by how many people are in it.
- the rent doesnt just cover match days, the club has a shop, ticket office, admin offices, registered office and first call on any use of the facilities to fulfill its football commitments - 24/7
- as stated by others, in the real world if you rent premises the landlord doesnt reduce the rent just because trade isnt so good - you can negotiate a change but the landlord has no duty to reduce
- the council veto on share sales works for the Charity too. This is not a special agreement - this is standard Company Act stuff and would be the same for nearly all companies. The focus on the veto is often inaccurate and misleading
- There is no way that the club can afford to move to another ground .......
(1) it has no money
(2) no one will lend an all but bankrupt club the money
(3) the club would probably pay more in interest than it would in rent
(4) it would take years in planning - and we all know costs regularly exceed planned budgets
(5) it has a lease at the Ricoh and to break that lease would cost money (usually rent x years left on lease)
(6) if it found a site then it would be paying for the rent and the interest whilst a new stadium built - how could they afford that ?
(7) the council wont give planning permission in Coventry - there is no good case for another stadium from their view point
(8) highly unlikely that the green belt round the city could be used
(9) Did i mention the club has NO MONEY?
I could go on .........................
The rent at the stadium is not and has never been the real problem at CCFC. Poor management on and off the pitch coupled with paying too much for over rated under performing players has been. Had the club got that right then we would not be questionning whether ACL (a seperate legal entity owned by two of the biggest backers of the club financially and otherwise over many years) should be charging a realistic rent or not.
Yes ACL would miss 17% of their income - they have said so but it would not kill the stadium and they would find other income sources to soften the blow. What ACL are saying is they are not beholden to CCFC for their future - because through good management and business sense they have spread their risk and are successful. Perhaps the Board and owners of CCFC should take a look at how to run a business by looking at ACL?
That 17% by the way reduces the more successful the Ricoh becomes - do not be surprised if it reduces further over the next few years (based on Olympics etc). The running of facilities, parking etc are likely to have been rented out to providers so the risk is not ACL's. CCFC could have taken on some of the income streams by purchasing those rights but chose not to - that would have generated extra income/profits, that wasnt ACL's choice yet some expect ACL to bend over backwards and threaten their own future just because the "mighty" CCFC says so ? Stand back and look at the management/board of CCFC and ACL, compare the two - who is the more successful ?
ACL owes CCFC nothing despite what some fans seem to think. So why should they drop the rent. As for an alternative stadium someone tell me in practical terms how the hell we could afford it ? !:facepalm:
