ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Did Grendel call you this?
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
no covcity4life or whatever his name is. Grendel is more polite, he said I am a non-fan.
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.
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.
That's how it has been reported so far unless you know any different?
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)
Isn't that just it.... it hasn't been reported officially by the only people that can confirm one way or the other.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 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.
I am sure the original rental deal the club signed was done so with a view to returning to the PL....
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.
Are you talking about the 2005 season that my point refers to?
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 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.
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.
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.
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?