Breaking news: Acl call off rent talks (1 Viewer)

[dadgad]

SiSU should of thought about this before cutting their own throat by stripping the squad and getting us relegated !! :facepalm::facepalm: we would not of lost millions if we stayed up

Too true......and glossed over by those who are suddenly
obsessing about F&B.
You have to wonder about the illogicality of some.?!?

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Excuse me, your Oldskyblueness!
But how many times have others "gone under", without taking A 2 div drop? Portsmouth?
I think CCFC are relatively angels in this respect!

imp:

fair comment grego gee except that Pompey are in administration and have not been wound up. Any club that has been wound up has either gone out of existence or dropped leagues. I was taking as recent reference what has happened to Rangers in Scotland, they dropped 2 divisions by forming Rangers New Co Ltd and the old Rangers was actually wound up

"Going under" in Administration is a totally different thing to being wound up

 

[skyblueman]

fair comment grego gee except that Pompey are in administration and have not been wound up. Any club that has been wound up has either gone out of existence or dropped leagues. I was taking as recent reference what has happened to Rangers in Scotland, they dropped 2 divisions by forming Rangers New Co Ltd and the old Rangers was actually wound up

"Going under" in Administration is a totally different thing to being wound up

OSB let's say for a minute YOU are SISU - just out of interest - putting all emotion aside - what would you do with the club?

 

[Godiva]

look at it this way

say the losses budgetted for by CCFC were £2m on sales of £6m (player budget 3.9m)...... personally I think it is more at over 3m loss

saving £800k on rent - thats what we are told
Rates saving ........... estimate £150k we are told
additional profit from ACL £100k - again we were told this by ACL
Additional turnover from F&B's £1m - doesnt actually add to profit because it is cross invoiced but allows bigger player budget of £650K, TF says CCFC will spend that allowance.

Losses .................................... (2,000,000)
Rent saving............................... 800,000
Rates saving ............................ 150,000
ACL profit allowance................ 100,000
additional spend on players budget(650,000)

Loss ......................................... (1,600,000)

loss is funded by SISU or not paying other creditors (ie greater and greater debt) or by selling players (who have we got that would fund those losses by being sold each year?)

It simply does not work ............... whatever ACL compromise, it does not solve or come close to solving CCFC's financial mess.............. so the real problem is where?

It's a nice little trick you did there


First of all - if sales are £6m FFP won't allow for 3.9m plus 0.65m in player wages.

Second - balancing the books is important so I suspect sisu won't accept continuous losses.

Third - You have yourself many times said ACL may be able to improve their operation, increase revenue and profitability.
Add to that the possibility to cut some overheads if both stadium and club was run by same unit.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I do not see the point in pouring more money after bad ............. would take what i could and go. BUT the world of hedge funds is not always the same logic as you and I there may be some angle they have that we do not yet realise.

Apart from not buying what/how they did in the first place there have been a number of cut off points. One where they wouldnt agree the funding so accounts not signed off debt was much less then and we were a Championship club. When the strategy of distressing ACL failed is another cut off point.

Would have done a lot of things differently

SISU are never going to get their money back.............. £45m and rising apparently........... they have no affinity for the club or emotional investment in it......... why keep wasting money.......... i just do not get it. They will get a pittance back but I do not see how they can get much back which ever way you look at it.

It is another reason why i do not see the new ground strategy working ........ to get to that new ground they will have to fund 3 years losses not just the construction and their debt just gets bigger and bigger.

Personally I would have done things differently but if it didnt work drawn a line under it much sooner.

 

[Noggin]

I think for the most part the talk of needing increased revenues because of ffp is sisu trying to get fans on side and not something they belive particually. It's not like Sisu are wanting to spend money and ffp is stopping them, there is no evidence that ffp is hindering us imo, the fact we are almost never paying for players shows that if we were allowed to spend more on wages we still wouldn't want to. also isn't buying out of contract players likely to lead to higher wage bills compared to actually purchaseing the player?

 

[oldskyblue58]

It's a nice little trick you did there no trick


First of all - if sales are £6m FFP won't allow for 3.9m plus 0.65m in player wages. current turnover is £6m if the deal went ahead it would be £7m and FFP budget £4.55m TF has repeatedly said he would spend every penny on the pitch (his words not mine)

Second - balancing the books is important so I suspect sisu won't accept continuous losses. so given they have saved the rent got the other concessions how do they do that ? only thing left would appear to be the wages so instead of spending the revised FFP budget of £4.55m they spend £1.6m less (2.95m or in other terms less than we spend now)

Third - You have yourself many times said ACL may be able to improve their operation, increase revenue and profitability. yes i have and how do you think they were able to drop £800k if they were not doing this ? but how does that affect CCFC's figures?
Add to that the possibility to cut some overheads if both stadium and club was run by same unit who said that was happening or even likely .

not sure you understood what i put Godiva

 

[Sub]

if we get promoted would that be a cut off point for SISU to say right we are now going to sell and try to get out of this mess?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I think for the most part the talk of needing increased revenues because of ffp is sisu trying to get fans on side and not something they belive particually. It's not like Sisu are wanting to spend money and ffp is stopping them, there is no evidence that ffp is hindering us imo, the fact we are almost never paying for players shows that if we were allowed to spend more on wages we still wouldn't want to. also isn't buying out of contract players likely to lead to higher wage bills compared to actually purchaseing the player?

Absolutely. Every time I hear this line tripped by someone supporting their stance; I ask them how - with current FFP rules in place and existing incomes streams - we offered McGoldrick more money plan any other player in this division only last month.

I haven't received an answer yet.....

 

[skyblueman]

I do not see the point in pouring more money after bad ............. would take what i could and go. BUT the world of hedge funds is not always the same logic as you and I there may be some angle they have that we do not yet realise.

Apart from not buying what/how they did in the first place there have been a number of cut off points. One where they wouldnt agree the funding so accounts not signed off debt was much less then and we were a Championship club. When the strategy of distressing ACL failed is another cut off point.

Would have done a lot of things differently

SISU are never going to get their money back.............. £45m and rising apparently........... they have no affinity for the club or emotional investment in it......... why keep wasting money.......... i just do not get it. They will get a pittance back but I do not see how they can get much back which ever way you look at it.

It is another reason why i do not see the new ground strategy working ........ to get to that new ground they will have to fund 3 years losses not just the construction and their debt just gets bigger and bigger.

Personally I would have done things differently but if it didnt work drawn a line under it much sooner.

Don't get it either but honestly don't think they have a master stroke they can pull either - either they just can't stomach leaving with such an eye-watering huge loss or they are just waiting on the last roll of the dice which is getting to the play-offs and financial salvation of promotion

 

[grego_gee]

I do not see the point in pouring more money after bad ............. would take what i could and go. BUT the world of hedge funds is not always the same logic as you and I there may be some angle they have that we do not yet realise.

Apart from not buying what/how they did in the first place there have been a number of cut off points. One where they wouldnt agree the funding so accounts not signed off debt was much less then and we were a Championship club. When the strategy of distressing ACL failed is another cut off point.

Would have done a lot of things differently

SISU are never going to get their money back.............. £45m and rising apparently........... they have no affinity for the club or emotional investment in it......... why keep wasting money.......... i just do not get it. They will get a pittance back but I do not see how they can get much back which ever way you look at it.

It is another reason why i do not see the new ground strategy working ........ to get to that new ground they will have to fund 3 years losses not just the construction and their debt just gets bigger and bigger.

Personally I would have done things differently but if it didnt work drawn a line under it much sooner.

Thanks osb but 'ang on a minute!
45 million in debts - isn't this the the debt they inherited, then pushed off to the Camen Isles?
How much has it changed?

imp:

 

[dadgad]

SISU are never going to get their money back.............. £45m and rising apparently........... they have no affinity for the club or emotional investment in it......... why keep wasting money.......... i just do not get it. They will get a pittance back but I do not see how they can get much back which ever way you look at it.

It is another reason why i do not see the new ground strategy working ........ to get to that new ground they will have to fund 3 years losses not just the construction and their debt just gets bigger and bigger.
.

Thanks for all your observations OSB. Always insightful.:claping hands:Like you I do not understand the logic of Sisu unless they believe that one day they will become business partners of a white knight who'll develop the surrounding area.
HOWEVER, is it conceivable that SISU are struggling with their own ineptitude and simply will not countenance any failure for reasons of HUBRIS.
I have seen this before in business particularly where reputations are at stake.....people refusing to lose a penny and go on to lose a fortune.
Just wondering?? Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Jack Griffin]

SiSU should of thought about this before cutting their own throat by stripping the squad and getting us relegated !! :facepalm::facepalm: we would not of lost millions if we stayed up

Nope, we lost millions every year we were in the championship.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Originally Posted by Grendel That's an irrelevant statement. Sisu purchased shares to buy the club. As 100% of shareholders agreed this I would say that is pure democracy - wouldn't you agree?


Load of bollox Grendel.
I know quite a few Shareholders who "All but had their shares stolen" So is 100% another one of your "Estimated facts"?:facepalm:

 

[Grendel]

Absolutely. Every time I hear this line tripped by someone supporting their stance; I ask them how - with current FFP rules in place and existing incomes streams - we offered McGoldrick more money plan any other player in this division only last month.

I haven't received an answer yet.....

I know that you keep saying this but where do you get the £10,000 from? Is it all from us or would we just be contributing a portion and Forest paying the rest?

 

[Grendel]

Originally Posted by Grendel That's an irrelevant statement. Sisu purchased shares to buy the club. As 100% of shareholders agreed this I would say that is pure democracy - wouldn't you agree?


Load of bollox Grendel.
I know quite a few Shareholders who "All but had their shares stolen" So is 100% another one of your "Estimated facts"?:facepalm:

Really what did Joy do? Break in at the date of night and steal them? The scoundrel!!

 

[oldskyblue58]

grego gee when they took over they wrote off £35m and took reponsibility for the net liabilities left. 2008 accounts showed a net amount of 8.6m net liabilities taken on Of which I believe 6m was written off in the 2011 accounts. Since then their "investment" or loans have risen to over £45m according to TF. The debt is sitting in SBS&L accounts

net liabilities are assets less liabilities ..... so in 2008 SISU took on 7.875m in assets and 16.475m in liabilities = 8.6m

 

[grego_gee]

Absolutely. Every time I hear this line tripped by someone supporting their stance; I ask them how - with current FFP rules in place and existing incomes streams - we offered McGoldrick more money plan any other player in this division only last month.

I haven't received an answer yet.....

Its obvious to football fans mighty mungo jerry,
Goalscorers are worth their weight in gold!
The overall wage budget is constrained by FFP and we have to get used to that....
But different teams will spend it differently - one team might spend equally over all players, another might spend 90% (eg) on one player.
Who knows who will prevail?

But its all part of the rich tapestry of FFP!
imp:

 

[oldskyblue58]

HOWEVER, is it conceivable that SISU are struggling with their own ineptitude and simply will not countenance any failure for reasons of HUBRIS.
I have seen this before in business particularly where reputations are at stake.....people refusing to lose a penny and go on to lose a fortune.
Just wondering?? Wouldn't be the first time.

You could be right, I have seen it before also, but I wouldnt know in this case

 

[mattylad]

The potential of income streams are more at the Ricoh which gives the potential of better investment in the team, but it is no good unless other things are addressed

And there in lies the crux "potential" of income streams as opposed to "assured" revenue streams on owning our own ground. As for breaking the lease these are done every day of the year and very rarely on an agreed basis otherwise why break it in the first place! Yes ACL would have a legal recourse but the same can be said of the rent arrears and SISU are still not paying up.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I know that you keep saying this but where do you get the £10,000 from? Is it all from us or would we just be contributing a portion and Forest paying the rest?

Urhm. No. It was us looking to sign him on a permanent basis at the time he signed for Ipswich. A long term contract running for a few seasons - I presume - and therefore running into a term when FFP gets even more punitive.

He's out of contract with Forest in the summer, so I don't think they'd be iinclined to help us out moving forward; do you?

Yet on this basis, we can sign a player - or at least try to do so - on a salary level higher than anyone esle in the division but unless things change with regards revenue, we 'can't compete'?

With regards the £10K sum; widely discussed on here, and elsewhere, and at a time when you seemed to participate without quarrel:

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26385-With-and-Without-DMC/page6

 

[mattylad]

Absolutely. Every time I hear this line tripped by someone supporting their stance; I ask them how - with current FFP rules in place and existing incomes streams - we offered McGoldrick more money plan any other player in this division only last month.

I haven't received an answer yet.....

Because with DMG onboard he most likely would not be in this division next year, we would have a) been promoted or b) sold him for a couple of hundred thou as leading goal scorer in Lg1

 

[oldskyblue58]

The potential of income streams are more at the Ricoh which gives the potential of better investment in the team, but it is no good unless other things are addressed

And there in lies the crux "potential" of income streams as opposed to "assured" revenue streams on owning our own ground. As for breaking the lease these are done every day of the year and very rarely on an agreed basis otherwise why break it in the first place! Yes ACL would have a legal recourse but the same can be said of the rent arrears and SISU are still not paying up.

Those assured incomes come with assured assured costs too

But ACL have an interest in keeping them there at the moment .......... if the club just upped and left it wouldnt be the same and ACL I reckon wouldnt hesitate in issueing winding up order based on the legal judgements they already have

just out of interest when do we stop down sizing ? ........ at the moment I can see us heading non league in our aspirations

 

[dadgad]

You could be right, I have seen it before also, but I wouldnt know in this case

The thing is about this particular dimension is that it is VERY PUBLIC.
Failure here would be highly conspicuous and nobody could fail to notice.
This would probably have a direct bearing on their other interests as it would affect others' judgement of them.
By and large Hedge funds like to operate under the radar of public scrutiny......in the case of a FOOTBALL CLUB this just isn't possible.
They should have known better, their friends (if they have any) would have advised them against it but they took it on.
Their wounded pride prevents them from walking away.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Its obvious to football fans mighty mungo jerry,
Goalscorers are worth their weight in gold!
The overall wage budget is constrained by FFP and we have to get used to that....
But different teams will spend it differently - one team might spend equally over all players, another might spend 90% (eg) on one player.
Who knows who will prevail?

But its all part of the rich tapestry of FFP!
imp:

I can see that. But we already have some of the higher earners in the league dear chap; Wood, McSheffrey and Bell being prime examples. Yet we can still court McGoldrick? All within the auspices of FFP, both now and moving forward? Yet things have to change for us to compete to get the better players at this level?

You have to admit; it's kinda hard to tie these loose ends into a convincing narrative, eh?

 

[Grendel]

Urhm. No. It was us looking to sign him on a permanent basis at the time he signed for Ipswich. A long term contract running for a few seasons - I presume - and therefore running into a term when FFP gets even more punitive.

He's out of contract with Forest in the summer, so I don't think they'd be iinclined to help us out moving forward; do you?

Yet on this basis, we can sign a player - or at least try to do so - on a salary level higher than anyone esle in the division but unless things change with regards revenue, we 'can't compete'?

With regards the £10K sum; widely discussed on here, and elsewhere, and at a time when you seemed to participate without quarrel:

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26385-With-and-Without-DMC/page6

So your "evidence" is a post from Sky Blue Taylor?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Because with DMG onboard he most likely would not be in this division next year, we would have a) been promoted or b) sold him for a couple of hundred thou as leading goal scorer in Lg1

That's a point of view, I agree.

But you can't take a business decision based on that, could you? What if we didn't get promoted, and with him on board we'd be under embargo straight away, wouldn't we?

Or do you just risk it, and hope for the best? And are you happy with owners that gamble such?

Or maybe the FFP card is being overplayed, to an extent that doesn't match the reality we're seeing; but which suits SISU's ambition of gleaning income they're not contracted to be in receipt of?

 

[Jack Griffin]

Goalscorers are worth their weight in gold!

Actually quite a bit more that that if they're up to playing in the premiership.
Gold is about £35K/kilo, so an 11st footballer (11*14/2.2*35,000)=£2.45M

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So your "evidence" is a post from Sky Blue Taylor?

The day I'm solely reliant on such being a very, very sorry day indeed. A pertinent point for the author to also take on board

 

[mattylad]

Those assured incomes come with assured assured costs too

But ACL have an interest in keeping them there at the moment .......... if the club just upped and left it wouldnt be the same and ACL I reckon wouldnt hesitate in issueing winding up order based on the legal judgements they already have just out of interest when do we stop down sizing ? ........ at the moment I can see us heading non league in our aspirations

We stop down sizing when the facilities and team fit in line with the amount of revenue we project the club can gain. This is not about counting how many beans we have in the cupboard today or even looking at what the club does next year or even five years from now.

Its looking 20/25 years ahead and saying this puts the club back where we need it to be owning its ground, engaging with its fans and being ran on a sustainable footing. If moving to a new ground means 25 years from now we had a sound business which was secure for the next 100 years then its a vision that has to be explored. Of course the best vision is that the club 25 years from now is playing at the Ricoh to full houses and reaping the rewards that those full houses would bring in.

 

[Grendel]

I can see that. But we already have some of the higher earners in the league dear chap; Wood, McSheffrey and Bell being prime examples. Yet we can still court McGoldrick? All within the auspices of FFP, both now and moving forward? Yet things have to change for us to compete to get the better players at this level?

You have to admit; it's kinda hard to tie these loose ends into a convincing narrative, eh?

We know nothing of the details -- you are indulging in speculation. McShefferey signed an extended deal which expires I believe this season. Wood must expire this season. We do not know if any contracts had relegation clauses and we don't know we offered McGoldrick £10,000 a year. If we did we would not have signed Clark and may not have been able to sign Adams, Philiskirk and we may have not recalled McDonald. Its utterly speculative.

 

[oldskyblue58]

We stop down sizing when the facilities and team fit in line with the amount of revenue we project the club can gain. This is not about counting how many beans we have in the cupboard today or even looking at what the club does next year or even five years from now.

Its looking 20/25 years ahead and saying this puts the club back where we need it to be owning its ground, engaging with its fans and being ran on a sustainable footing. If moving to a new ground means 25 years from now we had a sound business which was secure for the next 100 years then its a vision that has to be explored. Of course the best vision is that the club 25 years from now is playing at the Ricoh to full houses and reaping the rewards that those full houses would bring in.

wouldnt disagree with any of that. Do you think we have the owners to do that or will it require new (or even several) owners? For me the current owners do somethings right, and in my opinion other things wrongly, they are not the ones to take us forward

 

[Grendel]

wouldnt disagree with any of that. Do you think we have the owners to do that or will it require new (or even several) owners? For me the current owners do somethings right, and in my opinion other things wrongly, they are not the ones to take us forward

No they are not. They shown key strategic errors. However, without a competitive rent and agreement on all revenues the ground generates who would want us? Other than arguably Walsall do you think that we have one of the worst rental agreements in the Football League? I do.

 

[torchomatic]

So does something that is "widely discussed" on SBT make it true then?

With regards the £10K sum; widely discussed on here, and elsewhere, and at a time when you seemed to participate without quarrel:

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26385-With-and-Without-DMC/page6

 

[oldskyblue58]

No they are not. They shown key strategic errors. However, without a competitive rent and agreement on all revenues the ground generates who would want us? Other than arguably Walsall do you think that we have one of the worst rental agreements in the Football League? I do.

Not sure I can answer that the way you want me to Grendel...... just dont know the other rental agreements and to be honest we have very little real detail on ours

The current lease was signed in different times and was in need of review certainly. It is neither the reason why we are floundering nor its reduction the saviour of our Club. Is the latest offer on the rent reasonable, in my opinion yes. Have SISU used it as leverage on other things yes. There have been mistakes on both sides of the dispute ...... SISU took a calculated gamble in how they disputed the rent ...... the outcome could well be reduced rent but I think they lost much more...... ACL could have acted quicker. Both sides will come out of this with different structures and cost base...... the key is can they work together......... personally I just do not see it, there is no trust, and there is only the owners of one side capable of leaving

I made a post yesterday as to how I thought it could have gone ........... think it would have given a much more positive outcome. AS to who might want us yes the rent and matchday income is definitely useful but the key is how much to settle the SISU debts...... I would guess their expectation far out weighs any reasonable offer

So the Lease worst in the League - no idea........... but it did need reviewing and changing......... but so too did ACL and CCFC