ACL: "If (when?) City go down, we won't reduce the rent" (1 Viewer)

The CableGuy · Feb 12, 2012

http://www.football.co.uk/coventry_city/i_won_t_reduce_the_rent_-_gidney_rss2079805.shtml

Ricoh Arena Chief Executive Daniel Gidney has said that he would not drop the rent Coventry City are paying to use the stadium.

City currently pay around £1.2m in rent to Arena Coventry Limited but answering the following question from the audience at an event hosted by Coventry University, - Will the Chief Exec of the Ricoh Arena let Coventry City fold?, Mr Gidney replied: "I have duties & responsibilities. I wouldn't reduce rents".

CovLis86 · Feb 12, 2012

If anything thats a positive - at least SISU might have to strike that off their money saving list. Theory being a new consortium would buy that share of the Arena, therefore how much rent would be would be irrelevant.

Bennets Afro · Feb 12, 2012

Makes sense. It's not up to ACL to help us out. Its not their fault that we got relegated. We are only tenants. The club need to find ways to increase revenue

sw88 · Feb 12, 2012

ACL have a business to run so why would they reduce the rent just because we're in a lower league? They've already said the football team only generate 17% of their income now, so it's not like they rely on our rent to keep going.

Covstu · Feb 12, 2012

why would they, they made an investment!

ohitsaidwalker king power · Feb 12, 2012

An interesting point this has raised in my mind... would CCFC, playing in Div 3, really need such an overhead, is there a viable option, I'm thinking ground share with a local, maybe co develop the Butts stadium and reside there for a while?

Grendel · Feb 12, 2012

Redeveloping the butts would cost circa £10 million. It's a dump. We will be at the ricoh 100% fact.

PhilWasn'tBabb · Feb 12, 2012

Even at 3rd tier level I don't think the rent is all that unreasonable. It works about about £50,000 per league game, not including any cup games.

Doesn't sound like it works out that bad .. does it ?

Covstu · Feb 12, 2012

We would struggle to fit the butts the way our season is going

stupot07 · Feb 12, 2012

It's a lot of money for a 3rd tier club - we'll lose just under £2m in handouts from the premier league for starters (Championship clubs get £2.2m, League One £350k), not to mention sponsorship, tv rights, and attendance. The CET have already estimated that our wage bill has been reduced to £5m from £8m last season which must be one of, if not the lowest in the league at the moment (Derby's is £9.6m), and we're still losing money. If there isn't a reduction in rent, then the only way costs are going to be brought down to meet the £2m+ less income is through further cutting the wage bill.

Walsalls rent in £480k.

coundonskyblue · Feb 12, 2012

stupot07 said:
It's a lot of money for a 3rd tier club - we'll lose just under £2m in handouts from the premier league for starters (Championship clubs get £2.2m, League One £350k), not to mention sponsorship, tv rights, and attendance. The CET have already estimated that our wage bill has been reduced to £5m from £8m last season which must be one of, if not the lowest in the league at the moment (Derby's is £9.6m), and we're still losing money. If there isn't a reduction in rent, then the only way costs are going to be brought down to meet the £2m+ less income is through further cutting the wage bill.

Walsalls rent in £480k.

As you say were still losing money, around £4-5m apparently. Even if the rent was zero we would still be losing £3-4m a year. I don't really see the stadium rent a being a major in our prediciment.

Bennets Afro · Feb 12, 2012

If you was a landlord renting out a house, would it be your problem if your tenant start getting lower income as long as the rent is paid???

stupot07 · Feb 12, 2012

coundonskyblue said:
As you say were still losing money, around £4-5m apparently. Even if the rent was zero we would still be losing £3-4m a year. I don't really see the stadium rent a being a major in our prediciment.

Saying that, every penny counts so savings £200-300k off the rent may not seem a lot off the backdrop of loosing £4-5m but it would make a difference.

stupot07 · Feb 12, 2012

Bennets Afro said:
If you was a landlord renting out a house, would it be your problem if your tenant start getting lower income as long as the rent is paid???

No you would evict them and they would declare themselves homeless and get a council house.

EleanorRigby · Feb 12, 2012

Lots of land about at the moment to build a new ground on, the old GEC site at Binley, 2 old Courtaulds sites, one behind the Parkstone club and the other by the clock tower. Call it a mosque and there would be no parking problems any day of the week either.

WillieStanley · Feb 12, 2012

stupot07 said:
they would declare themselves homeless and get a council house.

Just for your information... That's not how homelessness works. Sorry.

Lord_Nampil · Feb 12, 2012

what would happen if Hoffman brought say the 50% share?? i guess we don't pay anything then surely???

Tonylinc · Feb 12, 2012

Lord_Nampil said:
what would happen if Hoffman brought say the 50% share?? i guess we don't pay anything then surely???

I'm sure that the proposed investors are looking at just that right now hence the delay. One thing that puzzles me however is this so called veto which the Council apparently have. I am pleased they have it where Sisu are concerned but what happens if they use it with the Hoff. group? Surely an "option to buy", is in these circumstances no option at all.

stupot07 · Feb 12, 2012

WillieStanley said:
Just for your information... That's not how homelessness works. Sorry.

I was joking, i know how homelessness works.

Paxman II · Feb 12, 2012

Ha ha an amusing post this one. I draw a simple conclusion; When I rented space at a campsite to place 40 mobile homes on it I was charged ground rent year after year. Each year the rent would rise and I had no choice but to pay. If I had fewer holiday makers and therefore less turnover even risk of loses then I could not go to the landlords and say hey give me a break reduce it for me?

I think the facilities CCFC receive for their rent agreement is very good value and has no reflection on which league the club are in. The facilities will be used in just the same way.

WillieStanley · Feb 12, 2012

stupot07 said:
I was joking, i know how homelessness works.

My bad! Sorry, fella!

CovFan · Feb 12, 2012

Just an observation, it wasn't if we go down, it was if we go into administration or liquidation.

Gray · Feb 12, 2012

EleanorRigby said:
Lots of land about at the moment to build a new ground on, the old GEC site at Binley, 2 old Courtaulds sites, one behind the Parkstone club and the other by the clock tower. Call it a mosque and there would be no parking problems any day of the week either.

Rotherham are currently building a 12,000 seater stadium, the cost 20 million

think we should just stick to paying the rent

ccfcway · Feb 12, 2012

Butts holds 4,000

lower rent, maybe (isnt rugby played there on a saturday ?), but with lower income via league payment and lower gates on a saturday, it would result in even more cost cutting and falling down the leagues

its simply not possible

ccfcway · Feb 12, 2012

Gray said:
Rotherham are currently building a 12,000 seater stadium, the cost 20 million

think we should just stick to paying the rent

well, pay rent for 17 years, or own a 12k stadium in 17 years....

hmm

wingy · Feb 12, 2012

Don't think the city council would permit a new stadium within the city,but warwickshire has abundant sites ,the old Peugott site ,Ansty,Bagngton,Brandon ,a46 near broadstreet etc ,if it comes to the point for ,ecoonomic ,survival prospects for the club.

Glen · Feb 12, 2012

Here is a thought fuck them and plkay at liberty way how much does that hold

bigbeatpete · Feb 12, 2012

sw88 said:
ACL have a business to run so why would they reduce the rent just because we're in a lower league? They've already said the football team only generate 17% of their income now, so it's not like they rely on our rent to keep going.

I'm not saying what we pay in rent is good or bad, but 17% of ACL's income.....from one client - that's pretty good. Who else will they rent a large green field to on a regular basis? Unless Fat Freds lot move in...

Being honest, I think they would miss it, more so than they are letting on - after all, most of us would miss 17% of our income would we not??

rob9872 · Feb 12, 2012

Our rent may only be 17% of their income but would represent a high profit yield since we pay our own way for policing and staffing on the day that their other income streams don't necessarily do and would be difficult to replace. I also guess that the matchday parking and the food and beverage sales are in excess of the quoted figures. I think it was a way of demonstrating that they can easily manage without us and that we should be grateful, but I'm not so sure that's true.

PhilWasn'tBabb · Feb 12, 2012

Unless Fat Freds lot move in...

LOL :claping hands:

wingy · Feb 12, 2012

PhilWasn'tBabb said:
Unless Fat Freds lot move in...

LOL :claping hands:

Theres only one lot of pikeys at theRicoh ,they pitched up 4 years ago.Sit In Screw UP

oldskyblue58 · Feb 13, 2012

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:

Jack Griffin · Feb 13, 2012

This wholly unrealistic suggestion crops up time after time, it is depressing that so many City fans live in an alternative universe where money apparently grows on trees and all you have to do to return to Highfield Road is simply click your heels three times and repeat, "There's no place like home."

Moff · Feb 13, 2012

Jack Griffin said:
This wholly unrealistic suggestion crops up time after time, it is depressing that so many City fans live in an alternative universe where money apparently grows on trees and all you have to do to return to Highfield Road is simply click your heels three times and repeat, "There's no place like home."

Thanks Jack...now you tell me.

I had only been clicking my heels twice. Now i know where i was going wrong

Brighton Sky Blue · Feb 13, 2012

oldskyblue58 said:
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:

Was ACL not founded out of our own inability to provide funds for the Ricoh in the first place? Genuine question as my understanding of the details is pretty sketchy. Either way, this 'play somewhere else' idea was mooted around (probably not seriously) by Keys in his interview with the BBC last month-I don't think it's ever been taken as a serious suggestion.

ACL: "If (when?) City go down, we won't reduce the rent" (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chief Commentator!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency