dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
A balanced view.
Breaking news: Acl call off rent talks (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
A balanced view.
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
I just don't care any more...........
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
An ACL spokesman said :
The situation is quite simple.
CCFC (aka SISU) owes ACL £1.3m which a court of law has confirmed our right to collect.
Our board has participated in hours of discussions with CCFC during which we have made many concessions and CCFC (aka SISU) has made none.
What's the point of even more discussions (or even expensive outside mediation for that matter), when only one side is willing to compromise ?
The situation is quite simple.
CCFC (aka SISU) owes ACL £1.3m which a court of law has confirmed our right to collect.
Our board has participated in hours of discussions with CCFC during which we have made many concessions and CCFC (aka SISU) has made none.
What's the point of even more discussions (or even expensive outside mediation for that matter), when only one side is willing to compromise ?
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Reading BTL, what's new is that ACL appear to have rejected SISU's mediation offer?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
+ 800k off the rent, you make about over 1m in savings, you're right, not a big deal.
Stupidly high wage bill? Well we can't do anything about that because no-one wanted to take our big-earners: Wood, Sheff, Baker, Cody, Bell so we're stuck with them, and we can't just release them because we'd have to pay all of they wage in one sum, so what would you do?
What can they do to get fans in? The city is quite apathetic to CCFC at this time, It's the squad who can't win that is the problem to not drawing in fans, there's not much the club can do when our home form has been poor.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I think most on here agreed mediation is a waste of time.
It is not legally binding.
For ACL whilst that drags on they are still getting paid nothing and at the end if it SISU could agree to something only to again say no when it comes to signing the paperwork.
Arbitration is the one that us more binding.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes it seems so.
SISU should have compromised just a little bit to meet ACL at least half way. After ACL's compromises.
However maybe they will now when the legal action is taken.
Maybe SISU will show some compromise then.
While it is easy to understand a lot of fans disapproval/dislike of SISU,for the mistakes some of which they have admitted to,what is unbelievable is how anybody can have any confidence in the local council.If they had set out to deliberately destroy a City,over the past decades then they could have hardly done a better job.
Going into Coventry City centre on a Saturday night,you would think it had just experienced a nuclear holocaust,it is utterly deserted.Souless windswept squares,ugly tatty buildings,roads that lead nowhere,half finished projects (Belgrade Plaza,Millenium Square),projects like Friargate not yet started despite being talked about back in 2005,the list of failure is never ending.
Comparing Coventry to comparable sized Cities like Nottingham/Cardiff,which have bustling shopping centres and vibrant night lives,is frankly embarassing.If they have made such a dogs dinner of this City,where civic pride hardly exists anymore,then the idea of them being involved in the Ricoh long term is utterly depressing.
Going into Coventry City centre on a Saturday night,you would think it had just experienced a nuclear holocaust,it is utterly deserted.Souless windswept squares,ugly tatty buildings,roads that lead nowhere,half finished projects (Belgrade Plaza,Millenium Square),projects like Friargate not yet started despite being talked about back in 2005,the list of failure is never ending.
Comparing Coventry to comparable sized Cities like Nottingham/Cardiff,which have bustling shopping centres and vibrant night lives,is frankly embarassing.If they have made such a dogs dinner of this City,where civic pride hardly exists anymore,then the idea of them being involved in the Ricoh long term is utterly depressing.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Anti-SISU spin here.
This is simply not sure, SISU said average is 150-213k a year average rent, with full F&B revenues etc. etc. that's clearly what they wanted, so if it's agreed at 400k, there's clearly been a compromise between the two parties HAS THERE NOT!?
ACL's position, because their deal was so unjustifiably unfair, they had to make 'big' concessions to make it 'fair', if SISU make a compromises on F&B and backdated debt and say accepted the 1st reduction, we'd still be getting ripped-off, and the club deserve money its fans' make at its events, they're not asking for revenue streams off concerts are they? So why sold ACL get a slice of the CCFC cake on match day!?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Please list the compromises that ACL have made? I want facts and not your own assertions.
skyblueman
New Member
eerrrr .... the HUGE reduction in rent maybe?
coundonskyblue
New Member
We were told at the start of the season that we had the 3rd highest wage bill in the league, yet we have still been able to comply with ffp. What has changed?
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
i like that idea!
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Which SISU has also compromised to... We're still paying over the market value...
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Do you really need me to go over the offers in the table from starting point to this final offer again?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
it's to do with when contracts were signed I believe. As FFP is being phased in over several seasons some of our older contracts, and most likely higher earners, were excluded from the calculation this year. My understanding is that next season that won't be the case so even if we have the same income next season as we do this season we will have a reduced player budget. Of course it will likely still be one of the biggest in the league but would mean we would have to try and get rid of the higher earners, problem there is everyone is in the same position and noone will want to pay them what they get here so they will most likley be happy to sit out their contracts here which will give us a big problem.
skyblueman
New Member
Maybe yes maybe no - for a shite team in a shite league yes there's an argument but the stadium is not a league 1 stadium - SISU put us in this league remember that
What I struggle to understand is exactly what finally once and for all will SISU accept on all this or is it just endless posturing?
kingharvest
New Member
No, no no.
I don't think the club have done a great job in explaining why F&B is important and what it means.
In the last season at highfield road, F&B revenue (so thats total sales/turnover, not profit) was £1.5m approx. This is what SISU are after. Its not even about the profit element of that (at the moment, although i'm not naive enough to think they don't want that), its about adding that £1.5m in turnover to our books, and the reason for doing this is that its allowed to be counted towards the FFP budget.
So - and this isn't perfect or precise but its close - lets say the club turnover is currently £5m per annum, and £3m of that is FFP eligible because its football related. I think the rule next season is that we can spend 60% of that £3m on players salaries. THAT'S why we need the F&B revenue, because you add another £1.5m in F&B to that £3m and our ability to spend on players salaries goes from bad to probably one of the best in the league. We got away with it this season because of relegation and the timing of the signings - i don't know the detail on that but i know that as of next season, there are no 'parachute' clauses.
Now, even though compass own the 'rights', i'm sure some sort of deal could be done, where by the turnover comes into our books, and we pay a 'management fee' to compass. However they work it, there is a deal to be done there. The problem is, ACL are not allowing us to even understand what the level of F&B revenue is.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
They didn't have to make any concessions. What concesions have your beloved grasping SISU made? Why can't you see them for what they are-a capitalist venture fund that is meant to exploit struggling businesses, often to those businesses detriment? Again, Call yourself a Socialist? Sorry, you're a lot closer to being a Thatcherite.
CJparker
New Member
How do people think ACL are being unreasonable? They are the ones not being paid the contractually-due amount. They haven't done anything wrong.
What exactly are SISU bringing to the negotiation? Normally something like this requires both sides to make concessions; instead, it's just been SISU demands and the expectation that ACL cave in. I back ACL 100% as they do not have an obligation to support/subsidise the club.
What exactly are SISU bringing to the negotiation? Normally something like this requires both sides to make concessions; instead, it's just been SISU demands and the expectation that ACL cave in. I back ACL 100% as they do not have an obligation to support/subsidise the club.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
At least this thread has managed to group all the conspiracy theorists of the shire in one place, to save them bothering the innocent.
I don't know if anyone remembers, but a court upheld ACL's position.
Still, what's the point of contracts eh? Contract of employment, pension, mortgage, life-cover, medical insurance. Just sign up to what you want, ignore the bits you don't like and hope for the best. In fact, if society behaved this way, that's be great; wouldn't it?
I don't know if anyone remembers, but a court upheld ACL's position.
Still, what's the point of contracts eh? Contract of employment, pension, mortgage, life-cover, medical insurance. Just sign up to what you want, ignore the bits you don't like and hope for the best. In fact, if society behaved this way, that's be great; wouldn't it?
Lets be honest on this score, Coventry suffers incredibly with a lack of investment due to them not being the core City within this region. Birmingham gets all the money as does Nottingham in the East Midlands and Bristol in the South West etc. We can't even get them to start on the railway stop at the Ricoh to my knowledge whereas Brum gets circa £600 million spent on New St !!
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
F&B was never on the table when they bought the club. When FFP was agreed in 2009, it was never on the table. It was never an issue - neither was the rent - until staring down the barrel of relegation. You, SISU, nor none of your cohorts mentioned any of this until we were slap-bang bottom of the table, 5 years after SISU came to the club, and 3 years after FFP was agreed.
Notwithstanding all of this; can you tell me how - even without all of this - they offered McGoldrick £10,000 a week a month ago? Simple question; simple answer please
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Indeed MMM-contracts are there to be broken after all. This is solely Tim Fisher's doing and if the club goes under it will be him to blame.
skyblueman
New Member
Should have been £20,000 a week or whatever he wanted
Desperados
New Member
If the £400k is agreed why don’t they back date and pay that sum now as a good will gesture? Discussions over the other revenue streams could then start again/continue?
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
The only manager we are 'propping up' is Thorn, some even suggested it was fair enough if he got as much money out of the club as he could. Coleman's contract would have expired a long, long time ago. We wouldn't have been paying off Boothroyd for long either, he took the job at Northampton a while ago, so we would have stopped paying him then.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
They voted for them when the league adopted them, if they were going to cause them a problem why didn't they vote against them?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/30/championship-clubs-financial-fair-play
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ree-to-financial-fair-play-rules-7678721.html
Times 26th April 2012
Last edited by a moderator:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Whereas ACL are what if not capitalist?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes - quoting facts please.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Not sure I fully understand the surprise of some at this CT report ......... surely you didnt think ACL would just sit there and let it go on forever?
Let me see company decides enough is enough and stops doing something in an effort to get talks ....... sounds familiar? Shock !
The issue of rent is a seperate issue to that of F&B's. ACL have put forward a rent of £400k - apparently agreeable to TF.
Issue 2 matchday F&B's ACL have said that all turnover from matchday F&B's can be credited to CCFC, I assume acceptable to TF what I guess is not acceptable is that CCFC have to pay for the right to that income. Certainly solves his FFP rule problem, and fans can be happy the club gets all the income ...... any reason why CCFC shouldnt get the cost because i can not think of a good one. Also take a look at the catering income at HR the near £1m (actually 911k) was an exception not the rule and despite inflation in prices the take will be much lower because there are less people
Issue 3 Rates refund - is it a refund or a reallocation? Is rateable value of site reduced or is it the same and the %age payable by CCFC to be reduced which means ACL pays more? I am led to believe it is the latter. The Rates refund probably back dated and will be used to settle the ACL back rent debt.......... ineffect doesnt cost CCFC any more for potentially big chunk of debt
Mediation - nothing to reject, TF made the proposal on the club website, the club match prog, the club email, CWR, and CT ...... in his own words he has actually confirmed that he hasnt actually talked to ACL etc about it
Someone please show me how getting turnover that allows more wages to be paid but also with associated costs of sales means that a company making several millions (3m+) losses every year is going to be more viable.......... if we spend 65% of the turnover (ignoring costs of sales) arent we still making losses?
If we pay no rent at all arent we still making losses - even TF admits all this (the rent, the F&B's the other income) is only heading towards breakeven, we are still making losses
Biggest effect next year on FFP will be twofold (a) the percentage drops to 60% (b) being in L1 our attendances will drop. FFP has nothing at all to do with rent (it is not in the calculation).
Oh yes lets head to another ground, except the ground owner will want rent whilst legally obliged to pay rent at Ricoh still. So dont pay Ricoh..... well resolution of that is admin at best (10points minimum deduction) at worst liquidation which might lead to a new co in Conference at best - of course we wont need as big a stadium but wont get the same income either ..... how long have Luton, Grimsby Macclesfield, Hereford etc been in that league? How long does it take to build a new stadium ? How is it to be financed with new loans perhaps ?
Currently how are we better off under SISU than we were in 2007....... very few assets, massive debts, income less than expenditure, under threat of extinction, creditors pressurising for money, tax man at the door, not succeeding on the pitch, disputes with major "partners", expectation of reducing incomes, poor public relations, directors financially at risk, ........... who was it that has distressed our club to this point? ACL, Council, Charity......... honestly?
Get to the negotiating table and talk realistically about what can be done and settle the matter. There is a limit to what ACL can offer, there is no right to income you have to earn or purchase it. The alternatives are pretty bleak, even terminal.
Everybody elses fault as usual ............. when in fact it is everyones fault, but a private business has to take responsibility for its own actions, decisions, strategy, set up etc and above all others is responsible for the outcome ...... be that ACl or in this case CCFC.
Let me see company decides enough is enough and stops doing something in an effort to get talks ....... sounds familiar? Shock !
The issue of rent is a seperate issue to that of F&B's. ACL have put forward a rent of £400k - apparently agreeable to TF.
Issue 2 matchday F&B's ACL have said that all turnover from matchday F&B's can be credited to CCFC, I assume acceptable to TF what I guess is not acceptable is that CCFC have to pay for the right to that income. Certainly solves his FFP rule problem, and fans can be happy the club gets all the income ...... any reason why CCFC shouldnt get the cost because i can not think of a good one. Also take a look at the catering income at HR the near £1m (actually 911k) was an exception not the rule and despite inflation in prices the take will be much lower because there are less people
Issue 3 Rates refund - is it a refund or a reallocation? Is rateable value of site reduced or is it the same and the %age payable by CCFC to be reduced which means ACL pays more? I am led to believe it is the latter. The Rates refund probably back dated and will be used to settle the ACL back rent debt.......... ineffect doesnt cost CCFC any more for potentially big chunk of debt
Mediation - nothing to reject, TF made the proposal on the club website, the club match prog, the club email, CWR, and CT ...... in his own words he has actually confirmed that he hasnt actually talked to ACL etc about it
Someone please show me how getting turnover that allows more wages to be paid but also with associated costs of sales means that a company making several millions (3m+) losses every year is going to be more viable.......... if we spend 65% of the turnover (ignoring costs of sales) arent we still making losses?
If we pay no rent at all arent we still making losses - even TF admits all this (the rent, the F&B's the other income) is only heading towards breakeven, we are still making losses
Biggest effect next year on FFP will be twofold (a) the percentage drops to 60% (b) being in L1 our attendances will drop. FFP has nothing at all to do with rent (it is not in the calculation).
Oh yes lets head to another ground, except the ground owner will want rent whilst legally obliged to pay rent at Ricoh still. So dont pay Ricoh..... well resolution of that is admin at best (10points minimum deduction) at worst liquidation which might lead to a new co in Conference at best - of course we wont need as big a stadium but wont get the same income either ..... how long have Luton, Grimsby Macclesfield, Hereford etc been in that league? How long does it take to build a new stadium ? How is it to be financed with new loans perhaps ?
Currently how are we better off under SISU than we were in 2007....... very few assets, massive debts, income less than expenditure, under threat of extinction, creditors pressurising for money, tax man at the door, not succeeding on the pitch, disputes with major "partners", expectation of reducing incomes, poor public relations, directors financially at risk, ........... who was it that has distressed our club to this point? ACL, Council, Charity......... honestly?
Get to the negotiating table and talk realistically about what can be done and settle the matter. There is a limit to what ACL can offer, there is no right to income you have to earn or purchase it. The alternatives are pretty bleak, even terminal.
Everybody elses fault as usual ............. when in fact it is everyones fault, but a private business has to take responsibility for its own actions, decisions, strategy, set up etc and above all others is responsible for the outcome ...... be that ACl or in this case CCFC.
kingharvest
New Member
Nope - no idea
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
When you're a company director; you have to operate within company law, and contract law. Failure to do so, and the company faces the consequences.
Fisher has overseen a stance that has put the club in peril; and has negotiated in a way that has placed the future of the club at risk.
If he's to blame or not is for him, his conscience and the reflection that stares back at him in the shaving mirror to decide
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
So, currently without income streams they claim are critical to the club's future; they offer a player more than any other player in this division - yet they need these additional incomes to offer competitive salaries?!?
Is it only me that sees some irony here?
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
SISU are NOT compromising...they're paying f*ck all...that is the major problem
