Can anyone Explain this? (1 Viewer)

dongonzalos · Oct 28, 2013

If SISU attempt to negotiate a sliding scale rent based on attendances. Including the 80% F&B that was previously offered.

The rent would have an additional scale within each division. It would alter per month within the scale depending on the average attendance for that month.

Sign up to this for ten years so the club has financial stability. Gradually improve till you are on the fringe of the play off whilst nearly breaking even.

You just might get quite a sizeable chunk of your investment back if you sell the club.

How is this not a financially more viable option than

Losing the extra estimated 2 million a season over 5 years in order to build a stadium.

Then spend 20-30 million on the stadium.

Then at some point try to sell the club for approximately 100 million. At some point.

The second option does not seem viable.

Please if possible keep the debate to the financial viability of each option.

hill83 · Oct 28, 2013

Is the first option made up?

The whole thing is made up isn't it? What do you want us to explain?

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.

And which play offs are you on about? League one or championship?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

italiahorse · Oct 28, 2013

That looks a good plan B should Plan A (Hostile take over of ACL) fail.

dongonzalos · Oct 28, 2013

hill83 said:
Is the first option made up?

The whole thing is made up isn't it? What do you want us to explain?

Sorry hill I thought we were planning to build our own stadium.

Regarding the first option. It is based on what was offered to the administrator when he was in charge of the club.

With some slight modifications that SISU should try and negotiate a long term rent deal along those lines.

So what needs explaining is how is building a new stadium a better financially viable option for CCFC / SISU than negotiating a long term rent deal.

bigfatronssba · Oct 28, 2013

stupot07 said:
Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.

And which play offs are you on about? League one or championship?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

So the remaining 20% will make all the difference?

dongonzalos · Oct 28, 2013

stupot07 said:
Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.

And which play offs are you on about? League one or championship?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

That's part of what I don't get.

Are you saying 80% of F&B at the Ricoh

Is significantly worse less than 100% of a 12k stadium?

Unfortunately for SISU I think the only way they are going to get a chunk of their money back is if we are within a realistic shout of the Championship play offs.

The club will need to be not to far off breaking even and within that dream of the premiership.

hill83 · Oct 28, 2013

dongonzalos said:
Sorry hill I thought we were planning to build our own stadium.

Regarding the first option. It is based on what was offered to the administrator when he was in charge of the club.

With some slight modifications that SISU should try and negotiate a long term rent deal along those lines.

So what needs explaining is how is building a new stadium a better financially viable option for CCFC / SISU than negotiating a long term rent deal.

I'm not trying to ruin your thread, but most of your figures are guesswork and estimations so it can't be answered.

I hope we end up back at the Ricoh for the record though.

dongonzalos · Oct 28, 2013

hill83 said:
I'm not trying to ruin your thread, but most of your figures are guesswork and estimations so it can't be answered.

I hope we end up back at the Ricoh for the record though.

I know what you are saying

However I think even with estimates.

It seems quite striking that this concept that we need to build a stadium to be financially viable. Is completely flawed.

I am at a loss to understand why anyone who has had access to Ms Seppela or Mr Fisher have not pressed them on this matter.

I appreciate they will not get exact figures.

However the whole concept is just not financial viable.

Nobody seems to be able to explain how it even potentially could be....

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
So the remaining 20% will make all the difference?

No, I don't believe that was what I saying.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

dongonzalos said:
That's part of what I don't get.

Are you saying 80% of F&B at the Ricoh

Is significantly worse less than 100% of a 12k stadium?

Unfortunately for SISU I think the only way they are going to get a chunk of their money back is if we are within a realistic shout of the Championship play offs.

The club will need to be not to far off breaking even and within that dream of the premiership.

again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

bigfatronssba · Oct 28, 2013

stupot07 said:
again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

But 80% of f&b's will.

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
But 80% of f&b's will.

Can I refer you to my earlier post..::

stupot07 said:
Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

Godiva · Oct 28, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
But 80% of f&b's will.

No - but the total revenue of ACL would help. What is it they forecast for 2014?

bigfatronssba · Oct 28, 2013

stupot07 said:
Can I refer you to my earlier post..::

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

Can't see that working. Although rent would be more affordable, 80% of the F&B's is only worth £80k profit based on 16.5k attendance. We still won't have the required turnover to compete.

I'm not having a go, I'm just trying to understand your point.

Are you saying that CCFC and ACL (Football related side) combined doesn't make enouge to compete?

Click to expand...

bigfatronssba · Oct 28, 2013

Godiva said:
No - but the total revenue of ACL would help. What is it they forecast for 2014?

Football related income for 2014 is zero.

Any other income turnover isn't relevant as FFP rules would prevent it being spent on the team.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Oct 28, 2013

Godiva said:
No - but the total revenue of ACL would help. What is it they forecast for 2014?

According to PKWH on Shane the other morning I think it was £ 13.4m for 2014- based on year to date trade, current orders and enquiries.

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

In terms of up half/top 6 in the championship, yes that's what I'm saying. Our turnover in our penultimate season in the championship was £10.3m, even with our highest attendance income which was £5.7m it would have been circa £12m. To put that into perspective, Norwich had a turnover of £17m in league one.

I'm pretty sure the CT quoted the turnover from the 2011/12 championship season as £9.4m which would mean only Barnsley and Doncaster had lower income than us.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

bigfatronssba · Oct 28, 2013

stupot07 said:
In terms of up half/top 6 in the championship, yes that's what I'm saying. Our turnover in our last season in the championship was £10.3m, even with our highest attendance income which was £5.7m it would have been £12.1m. To put that into perspective, Norwich had a turnover of £17m in league one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

Sorry, now I get what you mean.

Well assuming we were back at the Ricoh, I think we would have enough to get out of League 1.

After that I think crowds would be high for the first few games back in the Championship. Get off to a good start and you keep those fans.

CCFC has been in decline for the past 15 years. When that decline starts to reverse the fans will come back slowly.

We certainly wont do a Norwich or Southampton and do a double promotion. It needs to just be steady growth. That's how JH did it.

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2013

stupot07 said:
again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

so if sh1tsu own the ground, even if they let the club play at the ricoh rent free we wont increase our turnover as all the other stadium revenue (concerts, the surrounding land sale etc. etc.) will go to sh1tsu and not the club, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

sort of blows the "because of ffp sh1stu must own the ground argument" out of the water doesn't it.

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
Sorry, now I get what you mean.

Well assuming we were back at the Ricoh, I think we would have enough to get out of League 1.

After that I think crowds would be high for the first few games back in the Championship. Get off to a good start and you keep those fans.

CCFC has been in decline for the past 15 years. When that decline starts to reverse the fans will come back slowly.

We certainly wont do a Norwich or Southampton and do a double promotion. It needs to just be steady growth. That's how JH did it.

Yes, we need people back and steady growth but without access to addition income we will struggle in the long term.

Southamptons turnover was £22.9m and their wage bill £28.7m in that championship season!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
so if sh1tsu own the ground, even if they let the club play at the ricoh rent free we wont increase our turnover as all the other stadium revenue (concerts, the surrounding land sale etc. etc.) will go to sh1tsu and not the club, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

sort of blows the "because of ffp sh1stu must own the ground argument" out of the water doesn't it.

Oh Ffs, my post had nothing to do with shitsu (should get a couple of 'likes' for that) - I was trying to point out that whoever owns us (fan owned, PH4, or Bill fecking Gates) the long need of additional revenue for the football club. Getting promoted and having some more bums on seats isn't going to be enough to fund a championship promotional pushing side.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

Godiva · Oct 28, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
so if sh1tsu own the ground, even if they let the club play at the ricoh rent free we wont increase our turnover as all the other stadium revenue (concerts, the surrounding land sale etc. etc.) will go to sh1tsu and not the club, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

sort of blows the "because of ffp sh1stu must own the ground argument" out of the water doesn't it.

If the club and ACL were united the total revenue would be north of £20m.
That's probably enough to compete on in the Championship. Get promoted and top it up with the PL money and we should be back where we belong.

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2013

stupot07 said:
Oh Ffs, my post had nothing to do with shitsu (should get a couple of 'likes' for that) - I was trying to point out that whoever owns us (fan owned, PH4, or Bill fecking Gates) the long need of additional revenue for the football club. Getting promoted and having some more bums on seats isn't going to be enough to fund a championship promotional pushing side.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

i never said that you did say anything about sh1tsu. i was merely pointing out (using your theory about the rent) that the argument that is being spouted by some about how sh1tsu must own the ground because of FFP rules is blown out the water.

Funnily enough i was just checking out your theory on the tinterweb and i think your right.

and i quote. "The sources of income that count towards the FIFA Fair Play Rules are television rights, gate receipts, competition prize money, sponsorship, commercial activities, other operating income, selling fixed assets and financial income"

i assume concerts and income from hall would come under other operating income, the surrounding potential development land would be covered by selling fixed assets and you could probably put any money making scheme in financial income. all of which would go to the stadium owners, sh1tsu, not the sitting tenant, CCFC.

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2013

oops double post

Godiva · Oct 28, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
i never said that you did say anything about sh1tsu. i was merely pointing out (using your theory about the rent) that the argument that is being spouted by some about how sh1tsu must own the ground because of FFP rules is blown out the water.

Funnily enough i was just checking out your theory on the tinterweb and i think your right.

and i quote. "The sources of income that count towards the FIFA Fair Play Rules are television rights, gate receipts, competition prize money, sponsorship, commercial activities, other operating income, selling fixed assets and financial income"

i assume concerts and income from hall would come under other operating income, the surrounding potential development land would be covered by selling fixed assets and you could probably put any money making scheme in financial income. all of which would go to the stadium owners, sh1tsu, not the sitting tenant, CCFC.

Now you get it.
Can we agree the club and ACL should be united?

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2013

Godiva said:
Now you get it.
Can we agree the club and ACL should be united?

i agree totally. which is something that will never happen under sh1tsu ownership. as joy confirmed in the les reid interview the ricoh free hold would be owned by sh1tsu not the club. so if she had the opportunity to buy ACL (which would be the lease hold, as i confirmed in my exclusive interview with les reid), you don't really have any other option other than to assume the same would apply. certainly this would be the best return for her investors. when i say investors i don't mean me and you, the paying customers of one of the companies unfortunate enough to be owned by her hedge fund.

basically, we are screwed under sh1tsu ownership regardless of how you try to gloss it up.

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
i never said that you did say anything about sh1tsu. i was merely pointing out (using your theory about the rent) that the argument that is being spouted by some about how sh1tsu must own the ground because of FFP rules is blown out the water.

Funnily enough i was just checking out your theory on the tinterweb and i think your right.

and i quote. "The sources of income that count towards the FIFA Fair Play Rules are television rights, gate receipts, competition prize money, sponsorship, commercial activities, other operating income, selling fixed assets and financial income"

i assume concerts and income from hall would come under other operating income, the surrounding potential development land would be covered by selling fixed assets and you could probably put any money making scheme in financial income. all of which would go to the stadium owners, sh1tsu, not the sitting tenant, CCFC.

Interestingly reading have a hotel:

Revenue is boosted by the non-football activities with the hotel contributing £5.2 million and the Trust £0.7 million, leaving the pure football revenue as £17.2 million.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

Godiva · Oct 28, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
i agree totally. which is something that will never happen under sh1tsu ownership. as joy confirmed in the les reid interview the ricoh free hold would be owned by sh1tsu not the club. so if she had the opportunity to buy ACL (which would be the lease hold, as i confirmed in my exclusive interview with les reid), you don't really have any other option other than to assume the same would apply. certainly this would be the best return for her investors. when i say investors i don't mean me and you, the paying customers of one of the companies unfortunate enough to be owned by her hedge fund.

basically, we are screwed under sh1tsu ownership regardless of how you try to gloss it up.

I think JS said said 'unite the club and stadium'. Don't be confused if this means have the club in Otium and the stadium interests in ccfc Holdings (as a daughter to Otium). The increased total revenue can be used towards the FFP.
Separating the club from the stadium would decrease the value of both ... as is at the moment. That would not make any business sense for either the club, the stadium, sisu or sisu investors.

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2013

Godiva said:
I think JS said said 'unite the club and stadium'. Don't be confused if this means have the club in Otium and the stadium interests in ccfc Holdings (as a daughter to Otium). The increased total revenue can be used towards the FFP.
Separating the club from the stadium would decrease the value of both ... as is at the moment. That would not make any business sense for either the club, the stadium, sisu or sisu investors.

if that happened fine. but that wasn't what she said in the les reid interview. so i assume if she did say unite the club with the stadium she meant in the physical sense, not financial.

she really could win over a lot of fans very easily by stating that the club and the stadium will be 1, in every way with no margin for reading anything else into it, she hasn't and i think that tells what will really happen should she ever get her hands on the ricoh free hold.

Godiva · Oct 28, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
if that happened fine. but that wasn't what she said in the les reid interview. so i assume if she did say unite the club with the stadium she meant in the physical sense, not financial.

she really could win over a lot of fans very easily by stating that the club and the stadium will be 1, in every way with no margin for reading anything else into it, she hasn't and i think that tells what will really happen should she ever get her hands on the ricoh free hold.

Seppala said:
The club needs 100 per cent ownership of the freehold of the Ricoh. If you look back at the history of the club, you can see why this is important

http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...ive-interview-with-joy-seppala-some-thoughts/

I am not sure if the club 'needs' to own the freehold - but it certainly need to own ACL.
Owning the freehold is more a sisu thing - their exit strategy I would think.

SkyBlueBlood · Oct 28, 2013

italiahorse said:
That looks a good plan B should Plan A (Hostile take over of ACL) fail.

Is Plan A not the hostile takeover of SISU?

skybluefred · Oct 28, 2013

stupot07 said:
again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

Rental going down from £1.2m per annum to £150.000 per annum won't increase our turnover??? Can you explain that one please,and then add in the additional turnover generating from a massive increase in attendance figures at the RICOH. I'am positive that turnover would be more than quadrupled from that obtained from sixfidles.

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2013

skybluefred said:
stupot07 said:

again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

Rental going down from £1.2m per annum to £150.000 per annum won't increase our turnover??? Can you explain that one please,and then add in the additional turnover generating from a massive increase in attendance figures at the RICOH. I'am positive that turnover would be more than quadrupled from that obtained from sixfidles.

Click to expand...

i think you might be confusing turnover with profit. FFP rules are based on turnover not profit so within the context of the reply a lower rent wont benefit the club with FFP rules, it will just make the balance sheet look better.

ps:blue:

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2013

skybluefred said:
stupot07 said:

again that wasn't what I was saying. However, lower rent won't increase our turnover, which means we will continue to struggle to compete financially with our peers in the championship.

Rental going down from £1.2m per annum to £150.000 per annum won't increase our turnover??? Can you explain that one please,and then add in the additional turnover generating from a massive increase in attendance figures at the RICOH. I'am positive that turnover would be more than quadrupled from that obtained from sixfidles.

Click to expand...

Have you bothered reading the rest of the thread?

turnover
ˈtəːnəʊvə/
noun
1.
the amount of money taken by a business in a particular period. (I.e. Income)
"a turnover approaching £4 million"
synonymsgross) revenue, income, yield; More

Turnover is income. Lower rent isn't income, therefore lower rent won't increase turnover.

No one has ever argued that turnover won't be much much higher at the Ricoh than at Sixfields, you have completely missed the point of this thread and my posts.

I was talking about being at the Ricoh, and the need to access as much additional revenue as possible in order to be able to compete financially if we have top 6/promotion aspirations in the championship. This is regardless of who own us.

Our turnover for the 2010/11 season was £10.3m, and 2011/12 (according to administrative report) £9.4m (c15k fans) - only Barnsley and Peterborough had lower turnovers. You can add extra revenue for increased crowds but the most we have made is £5.7m in match day receipts - that's £1.8m more than in 2010/11 which would make an estimate of £12.1m (crowds c21k) - we'd have still been one of the lowest turnovers in the league. To put this in to context Norwich on similar crowds had a turnover of £17m in league 1 in 2009/10 - 9 championship clubs had higher turnovers than this in 2011/12 season.

Incidentally, the season we got relegated the 3 promotion sides wage bills were:

west Ham - £42m
Southampton £29m
Reading £27m

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

Can anyone Explain this? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency