Acl to comment on Ricoh arena position (1 Viewer)

[ccfc92]

The "extreme" rent was accepted by CCFC before and after the take over by SISU. It wasn't called "extreme" until recently.

The judge said it was 10% of revenue - relatively speaking not "extreme".

The revenue fell and the rent became "extreme", but the rental agreement from 2005 wasn't a cunning plan suddenly to distress an unknown future owner in 2012 as Ian was suggesting.

The club did not seriously try to negotiate a rent reduction at the start. "Seriously" negotiating is e.g. threatening to and/or moving to another ground - as we have seen. That did not happen.

So now I am a non-fan. I was a scab when I said I went to Sixfields, a shit fan when I said I lived abroad and now I am a non-fan because I didn't agree with Ian's emotive use of the word "extreme" and showed that by saying "so called" ( in other words it was subjective, as the judge, for example, thought that 10% of revenue at the time, was not extreme).

Did Grendel call you this?

 

---

[martcov]

Did Grendel call you this?

no covcity4life or whatever his name is. Grendel is more polite, he said I am a non-fan.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Of course it was. The problem was historic and SISU should have addressed it when they first came in. Clearly due diligence was not done...was this down to impending admin, as they weren't the expected people to take over originally. We don't know.

Just because something was agreed badly a long time ago, doesn't make it in the best interest of the club.
ACL pretending they give two fucks about the club is galling to say the least.

I think ACL care deeply about the club, it has been shown that the value of ACL increases with the club there, the club will bring in more money in rent and other income for ACL, and with the stadium sponsorship deal up for renewal more money would be paid for that with the club there.

The club would also be better off at the Ricoh, the only people who would lose out are SISU's investors as they wouldn't be getting hold of ownership.

 

[martcov]

no covcity4life or whatever his name is. Grendel is more polite, he said I am a non-fan.

Just to clarify: Grendel himself didn't call me a scab or shit fan - others did. He just called me a non-fan. He does himself no favours by lowering himself to deciding who are good fans, bad fans, non-fans or whatever.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Just to clarify: Grendel himself didn't call me a scab or shit fan - others did. He just called me a non-fan. He does himself no favours by lowering himself to deciding who are good fans, bad fans, non-fans or whatever.

Hate talking about others, but...

The annoying thing when I watch things unfold, is it then means when Grendel makes a good point, people leap on it because he's Grendel, when maybe they shouldn't.

ACL's biggest asset, is Grendel...

 

[ccfc92]

Hate talking about others, but...

The annoying thing when I watch things unfold, is it then means when Grendel makes a good point, people leap on it because he's Grendel, when maybe they shouldn't.

ACL's biggest asset, is Grendel...

Well to be perfectly honest, this thread was going quite well. With good input from many posters. The last hour or so seems to have gone downhill, maybe he had some blue smarties?

 

[Astute]

Not quite what I said... For the club to maintain wage spend for Championship, rent and outgoings it had to sell 22k tickets a match to break even. No other revenue streams remember... Someone else had them.

How many games in 7 seasons do you think we hit that target? Bet it's less than 40 Out of a minimum of 322 games.

Nearly every game when SISU first took over. But they have made such a bad job of running OUR club that most games don't even reach 10% of this figure now.

 

[covcity4life]

no covcity4life or whatever his name is. Grendel is more polite, he said I am a non-fan.

Dont remember that

 

[Astute]

So as usual we have to try and read between the lines.

SISU said that they should only have to pay 90k as 500k had already been paid. But this was when we all knew that only 300k had been paid. The message after this was that SISU had paid a substantial amount into an account ready to be paid once the FL decided how much had to be paid. ACL now say that less than 20% has been offered to them. This tells me that 90k is the substantial amount paid into the account.

I would say that 590k is the amount that was needed as the agreement seems to be what SISU were told and had agreed to pay to get the golden share. Unless there was an agreement that it could have been paid by A.N.Other it should stand. A few points do arise from this...

1, Are we risking a points deduction for non payment on time?

2, If only 90k was paid into the account how can SISU say that THE money was there to be paid to ACL?

3, How many will blame ACL again if we get a points deduction as the monies are owed to them?

I have been waiting for something to be said by ACL since the JR. We had the statement from CCC. It may be seen as being worded strongly, but I see it as being worded as needed. It don't give SISU much of a chance of twisting what is meant. They now know that if plan A is really plan C and plan C is really plan A and they want to bring our club back they need to pay the 590k. As usual it seems just like a delaying tactic to not have to pay ACL any money in the hope of distressing them. The vast majority of people now admit to knowing this is the case. Even SISU seem to be admitting so now. They say that the JR should be able to be appealed as it was based on unlawful practices and not the law. And the judge also said that he could see what they are up to. Our club won't come home whilst they are doing so. Yet there is still no proof of this new stadium we keep getting told of.

So SISU only have two more years to get their plans moving on. Can they not pay ACL money for this long? Would it make much difference? Will they actually go ahead with building a stadium? Would say the answer is no to all of these questions.

So what is wrong with ACL saying that they want the money that seems to be owed and all legal action to stop before negotiating a return? Who would want negotiations to start with so much fresh bad blood between the two sides?

And on the side of one more year being at Northampton. IIRC both SISU and NTFC can give one years notice to cancel the agreement. So NTFC would have to give a years notice to SISU. But SISU would only have to pay a years rent and could bring our club home. They would get this money back after a few games. No massive hardship as some would like to make out. Nothing that could stop our club being home for the start of the season. The only thing stopping this is Joy not giving up on getting the freehold. Pay the 590k and stop the JR crap.

The best chance of our club coming home to me is if SISU don't get a chance of keeping up with the JR appeals. They would be left with the choice of bringing our club home or building a stadium that nobody wants. And they only have two years left of not proving that one is being built. There would be nothing stopping them from bringing our club back mid season as long as they pay what is owed and try negotiating for once. Seems to be a massive ask though.

 

[Ian1779]

I think the general gist is ACL received £300k for costs of the football club reneging on their legal obligations. This should have been more but they accepted a deal.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Who would have a guarantor in place for such an event, and at that level of value?

If it was for 'loss of earnings' outside of rent then it just goes to show how ridiculous the rent deal was in the first place. Why should the club be in any way liable for the earnings of the management company that they generate for them and receive 0% of? If ACL had everything except the match tickets.. the liability is on them alone.

I do agree that the FL can clarify the situation at a moments notice- yet again choose to say nothing.

 

[dongonzalos]

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Who would have a guarantor in place for such an event, and at that level of value?

If it was for 'loss of earnings' outside of rent then it just goes to show how ridiculous the rent deal was in the first place. Why should the club be in any way liable for the earnings of the management company that they generate for them and receive 0% of? If ACL had everything except the match tickets.. the liability is on them alone.

I do agree that the FL can clarify the situation at a moments notice- yet again choose to say nothing.

That's how it has been reported so far unless you know any different?

 

[Ian1779]

Nearly every game when SISU first took over. But they have made such a bad job of running OUR club that most games don't even reach 10% of this figure now.

Not quite..... the following games by season that had an attendance greater than the 'break-even' amount of 22K


2005-06 12 games
2006-07 7 games
2007-08 6 games
2008-09 4 games
2009-10 1 game
2010-11 2 games
2011-12 1 game
2012-13 1 game

A total of 34 games in 7 years ( out of 161 minimum home games - not the 322 I stated previously)

 

[Ian1779]

That's how it has been reported so far unless you know any different?

Isn't that just it.... it hasn't been reported officially by the only people that can confirm one way or the other.

 

[dongonzalos]

Not quite..... the following games by season that had an attendance greater than the 'break-even' amount of 22K


2005-06 12 games
2006-07 7 games
2007-08 6 games
2008-09 4 games
2009-10 1 game
2010-11 2 games
2011-12 1 game
2012-13 1 game

A total of 34 games in 7 years ( out of 161 minimum home games - not the 322 I stated previously)

Is that 50% of the home matches in that 2005 season. I didn't realise it was that many. Just shows the potential that is there with CCFC.
What a shame fans have suffered so much.
Lets hope someone gets up back to the Ricoh with what this season could potentially be a decent first 11.

Just a sniff of success back at the Ricoh albeit division three would outstrip even that impressive 2005 season I think.

 

[dongonzalos]

Isn't that just it.... it hasn't been reported officially by the only people that can confirm one way or the other.

Where did the CET get that bit from. It's not exactly the sort of thing you just randomly make up?

 

[Ian1779]

Is that 50% of the home matches in that 2005 season. I didn't realise it was that many. Just shows the potential that is there with CCFC.
What a shame fans have suffered so much.
Lets hope someone gets up back to the Ricoh with what this season could potentially be a decent first 11.

Just a sniff of success back at the Ricoh albeit division three would outstrip even that impressive 2005 season I think.

It does show potential I agree... but when you have a deal where you only can break even around 20% of your home fixtures (and only real opportunities to generate revenue) it's shows how unsustainable the rental deal was in the first place.

 

[Noggin]

It does show potential I agree... but when you have a deal where you only can break even around 20% of your home fixtures (and only real opportunities to generate revenue) it's shows how unsustainable the rental deal was in the first place.

Obviously paying significantly less rent would have helped but the break even number was so high mostly due to other costs (wages in particular) a better rent deal (something like the 400k discussed) would have lowered the break even to something like 20k with back of the napkin calculations.

discussing rent now though is all sorts of pointless, this was a reasonable discussion a year + ago when we actually thought sisu were trying to get a good rent deal which was actually something we all wanted even if we didn't agree with their methods.

 

[dongonzalos]

It does show potential I agree... but when you have a deal where you only can break even around 20% of your home fixtures (and only real opportunities to generate revenue) it's shows how unsustainable the rental deal was in the first place.

It's not going to be that same deal if we return though.

The rent itself will be a quarter.

I can't see if Coventry were back at the Ricoh playing attractive football in the top six. There would easily be 20k plus fans there in my opinion.

 

[dongonzalos]

It's not going to be that same deal if we return though.

The rent itself will be a quarter.

I can't see if Coventry were back at the Ricoh playing attractive football in the top six. There would easily be 20k plus fans there in my opinion.

In the entertainers seasons we averaged around 21k. That was the last time as a fan I remember Coventry giving me a team to get excited about. 1998-99. That was in the much smaller Highfield Road. Think 17-18k would have been our smallest crowd that season.

Attendances as a whole have risen since then as has our capacity (if at the Ricoh)

The potential is certainly there a city with a population of 309k plus the extending Warwickshire region you have probably a combined 500k population to delve into.

Completely wasted at the moment

 

[Snozz_is_god]

Not quite..... the following games by season that had an attendance greater than the 'break-even' amount of 22K


2005-06 12 games
2006-07 7 games
2007-08 6 games
2008-09 4 games
2009-10 1 game
2010-11 2 games
2011-12 1 game
2012-13 1 game

A total of 34 games in 7 years ( out of 161 minimum home games - not the 322 I stated previously)

And when did SISU take over....... says it all

 

[shmmeee]

It does show potential I agree... but when you have a deal where you only can break even around 20% of your home fixtures (and only real opportunities to generate revenue) it's shows how unsustainable the rental deal was in the first place.

How is it back in 2012? Put a bet on Spain for the Euros.

You're using a massive wage bill that's been slashed since (along with other costs) and a rent figure that no-one is offering.

The break even on a £400k rent deal is about 6-7k fans.

For comparison, we stand to lose about £1m at Sixfields this season.

 

[Grendel]

Is that 50% of the home matches in that 2005 season. I didn't realise it was that many. Just shows the potential that is there with CCFC.
What a shame fans have suffered so much.
Lets hope someone gets up back to the Ricoh with what this season could potentially be a decent first 11.

Just a sniff of success back at the Ricoh albeit division three would outstrip even that impressive 2005 season I think.

It doesn't show anything of the sort. The average price was £11 per ticket to attract people in. The second season tickets were at £5 a ticket for special games such as Colchester.

So effectively with a lower than average wage bill in season one the club were attracting half the ticket revenue needed to break even on the deal.

 

[Astute]

Not quite..... the following games by season that had an attendance greater than the 'break-even' amount of 22K


2005-06 12 games
2006-07 7 games
2007-08 6 games
2008-09 4 games
2009-10 1 game
2010-11 2 games
2011-12 1 game
2012-13 1 game

A total of 34 games in 7 years ( out of 161 minimum home games - not the 322 I stated previously)

You agree that everyone says the rent was set too high, but most agree that the rent had to be set so high otherwise it would have needed state funding for a football club when the arena was first opened. So CCC/ACL were only wrong by not reducing the rent earlier. Even the judge said that the rent was only 10% of turnover. Then SISU ran our club the SISU way. And it has been downhill ever since. Do you disagree with any of this so far?

In their first season they were very near the average break even attendance, and this was set so high because of the wage bill. Agreed?

So if they were near the break even attendance figure in the season that they took over in how are we supposedly 50m in debt after another 7 years of having them at our club? How many of these years did they pay the rent? How much of the debt is down to the rent? I would say much less than they have charged our club in different ways.

It isn't all about the rent like you continually say. The high rent didn't help, but it wasn't the main cause. That would be like saying the low rent in Northampton is helping. We all know it isn't true.

 

[Grendel]

How is it back in 2012? Put a bet on Spain for the Euros.

You're using a massive wage bill that's been slashed since (along with other costs) and a rent figure that no-one is offering.

The break even on a £400k rent deal is about 6-7k fans.

For comparison, we stand to lose about £1m at Sixfields this season.

We lost seven million in our last season at the Ricoh - gate revenue was I believe £2.5 million. Are you assuming £400,000 included match day costs or not? If not rent would still account for over 20% of all match day revenue as I believe prices were down to below £9 per ticket (can't remember) - still too high and still not an attractive proposition for any new owner.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Not quite..... the following games by season that had an attendance greater than the 'break-even' amount of 22K


2005-06 12 games
2006-07 7 games
2007-08 6 games
2008-09 4 games
2009-10 1 game
2010-11 2 games
2011-12 1 game
2012-13 1 game

A total of 34 games in 7 years ( out of 161 minimum home games - not the 322 I stated previously)

Paul Fletcher said that the attendance for break even was 23,000 if memory serves me right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

You agree that everyone says the rent was set too high, but most agree that the rent had to be set so high otherwise it would have needed state funding for a football club when the arena was first opened. So CCC/ACL were only wrong by not reducing the rent earlier. Even the judge said that the rent was only 10% of turnover. Then SISU ran our club the SISU way. And it has been downhill ever since. Do you disagree with any of this so far?

In their first season they were very near the average break even attendance, and this was set so high because of the wage bill. Agreed?

So if they were near the break even attendance figure in the season that they took over in how are we supposedly 50m in debt after another 7 years of having them at our club? How many of these years did they pay the rent? How much of the debt is down to the rent? I would say much less than they have charged our club in different ways.

It isn't all about the rent like you continually say. The high rent didn't help, but it wasn't the main cause. That would be like saying the low rent in Northampton is helping. We all know it isn't true.

To clarify in season one we were nowhere near the break even figure as price per ticket was far lower than required.

 

[The Gentleman]

It does show potential I agree... but when you have a deal where you only can break even around 20% of your home fixtures (and only real opportunities to generate revenue) it's shows how unsustainable the rental deal was in the first place.

I am sure the original rental deal the club signed was done so with a view to returning to the PL where although a figure of £1.3m a year was still high, the money from the PL would have cushioned the blow and you would not have heard a peep from anyone about it. Which makes it even more ludicrous that the club did not sign up to the sliding scale rent in the event of staying in the championship or even worse relegation from it.

 

[dongonzalos]

It doesn't show anything of the sort. The average price was £11 per ticket to attract people in. The second season tickets were at £5 a ticket for special games such as Colchester.

So effectively with a lower than average wage bill in season one the club were attracting half the ticket revenue needed to break even on the deal.

Are you talking about the 2005 season that my point refers to?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I am sure the original rental deal the club signed was done so with a view to returning to the PL....

There in lies the problem, the structure for the Rental Deal was done all in "view" of the Club being at a higher level then we actually were and the deal should have been done with realistic finances in mind that related to our position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

You forget the discount.
ACL settled the £500t for £300t.
That mean ACL have written off £200t whichever way you go.
They main issue is if the FL accepts the money paid by McGinnity/Robinson is part of the money Otium owed ACL. If not ACL are still owed £590t - but if it is ACL are only owed £90t.

You're a bright guy, so I'm going to guess you're trolling.

Hilarious to see the improvised contract law Ian Grendel and FP are spouting.

So the judge and the contract say very clearly that the lost income guarantee is nothing to do with rent. The only people who have even suggested this are the people trying not to pay.

At absolute worst, GR & MM need to chase ACL for cash after Sisu have paid. Except they wouldn't have a leg to stand on as the guarantee isn't to do with rent and neither is the £590k AND even with the £590l ACL still lost money so had a right to the money.

Sisu have fucked up and cost our club money. Again.

Makes you wonder if those who defend them at every turn have the best interests of the club at heart or are just "useful idiots".

 

[Grendel]

Are you talking about the 2005 season that my point refers to?

Season one we were significantly behind break even. High crowds through subvented pricing doesn't generate enough revenue.

Also all new stadiums attract high crowds in season one. Ian's data shows a shark decline thereafter as the novelty factor wears off.

 

[shmmeee]

There in lies the problem, the structure for the Rental Deal was done all in "view" of the Club being at a higher level then we actually were and the deal should have been done with realistic finances in mind that related to our position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone disagrees Robo. Problem is the club thought they were about to get "instant success" and would only ever pay the Prem amount so concocted this deal. I'd hope Joy is sensible enough to accept the sliding scale this time, but it's looking like she's stupid and evil and would rather bankrupt our club chasing a pipe dream.

 

[Gint11]

I said a few weeks ago if we sell Wilson and don't return home this season I'm done.

Well it's been a pleasure. I'm out.

You'll be back no matter how strongly you feel. In a few years we return, mass together a good side and start winning, you will get itchy feet.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Season one we were significantly behind break even. High crowds through subvented pricing doesn't generate enough revenue.

Also all new stadiums attract high crowds in season one. Ian's data shows a shark decline thereafter as the novelty factor wears off.

Take into account as well the way we ended the 05/06 season you would have thought there would have been more optimism to bring fans through the gates, however I don't think it did and had we not had that end to that season we wouldn't have had the attendance figures we did 06/07.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

Season one we were significantly behind break even. High crowds through subvented pricing doesn't generate enough revenue.

Also all new stadiums attract high crowds in season one. Ian's data shows a shark decline thereafter as the novelty factor wears off.

The data doesn't show a sharp decline. It shows the standard decay the club has had every season there's been no success since the war.

It's also a really random stat to use instead of average attendance. And a very limited data set during which we were going through our worst period.

Full gates are and have always been more about the opposition, which Ian doesn't control for and thus makes his entire data set useless.

Edit: if you're interested in attendance and want a proper data set, try this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuIkUXePUzK9dDA1ZWNucjlsMTNpd1lSQ291NTJpX3c&usp=drive_web