Can CCFC afford current 1.8 million interest ? (1 Viewer)

sky blue john · May 11, 2014

If the rent was 1.3 million and Sisu said we couldn't afford this. Then how can we afford 1.8 million a year to Arvo in interest ?
This is just last years accounts figure god only knows what it will be now !!!

Grendel · May 11, 2014

sky blue john said:
If the rent was 1.3 million and Sisu said we couldn't afford this. Then how can we afford 1.8 million a year to Arvo in interest ?
This is just last years accounts figure god only knows what it will be now !!!

Because they can't afford £3.1 milliion?

Spionkop · May 11, 2014

Sky Blue John, because Sisu tell lies?

skybluetony176 · May 11, 2014

Grendel said:
Because they can't afford £3.1 milliion?

It's all gone on legal bills?

Sky Blue Kid · May 11, 2014

@ Grenduffy.....Don't forget the £2.7m pa. "Management Fees"....Now they REALLY can't afford that can they?

will am i · May 11, 2014

Grendel said:
Because they can't afford £3.1 milliion?

They wouldnt have to as revenues would increase if they played home games at the Ricoh

sky blue john · May 11, 2014

Grendel said:
Because they can't afford £3.1 milliion?

How about being more realistic 2 million ?
Which equates to sixfields rent + Arvo interest...

Astute · May 11, 2014

Of course our club can afford the interest being charged by SISU. Have you not read on here it is just a juggling of numbers and won't be repaid as we don't have it. The rent can't be afforded because it would have to be paid. Even though it would bring in an extra 2m plus.

sky blue john · May 11, 2014

Is this thread quiet because Sisu have no defence ?

Grendel · May 11, 2014

sky blue john said:
Is this thread quiet because Sisu have no defence ?

No it's because it makes no sense.

Mr T - Sukka! · May 11, 2014

Can CCFC afford it? NO.
Can SISU afford it? YES.

If you screw both of the above into 1 you have Otium.

It makes no buisness sense whatsoever to keep pumping money to keep Otium going.

They will never get a £ return.

sky blue john · May 11, 2014

Grendel said:
No it's because it makes no sense.

Please explain if you can ??

Jack Griffin · May 11, 2014

No £1.8M will cripple the club..

stupot07 · May 11, 2014

No they can't afford it, but that doesn't make £1.3m rent ok.

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

Jack Griffin · May 11, 2014

stupot07 said:
No they can't afford it, but that doesn't make £1.3m rent ok.

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

I never said it was.. I don't know why you repeat that mantra, to my knowledge no one has tried to justify that level of rent.

Anyway this topic is about interest payments to ARVO, please keep on topic..

stupot07 · May 11, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
I never said it was.. I don't know why you repeat that mantra, to my knowledge no one has tried to justify that level of rent.

Anyway this topic is about interest payments to ARVO, please keep on topic..

1) I never said you did.

2) The OP quotes the rental deal as a direct comparison the interest, so I haven't taken it off topic.

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

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 11, 2014

stupot07 said:
1) I never said you did.

2) The OP quotes the rental deal as a direct comparison the interest, so I haven't taken it off topic.

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

We all know the rent was too high, so this isn't an excuse. However, the rent gave us use of one of the best stadiums in the league to drive incomes from and call our home. Therefore a significant tangible benefit.

Care to explain to me what significant tangible benefit we get from any interest payments, or management fees?

skybluetony176 · May 11, 2014

Mr T - Sukka! said:
Can CCFC afford it? NO.
Can SISU afford it? YES.

If you screw both of the above into 1 you have Otium.

It makes no buisness sense whatsoever to keep pumping money to keep Otium going.

They will never get a £ return.

I don't think sisu can afford it. I think their finances are based on what they can convince their investors to invest in. That's surely becoming a taller and taller order for them to accomplish?

stupot07 · May 11, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
We all know the rent was too high, so this isn't an excuse. However, the rent gave us use of one of the best stadiums in the league to drive incomes from and call our home. Therefore a significant tangible benefit.

Care to explain to me what significant tangible benefit we get from any interest payments, or management fees?

We didn't 'drive' many incomes from the Ricoh apart from the ticket sales, 1/3rd of which went straight out to pay the rent and matchday costs.

The interest gives us no benefit, never said they did, unfortunately we haven't got billionaire owners who will give us money and when we make losses of £7m (without paying rent) at the Ricoh money needs to be borrowed and interest paid on it.

Pretty sure it's been shown on here by OSB that management fees is just the flow of money between companies, and not been taken out of the club.

It's all shit.

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

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 11, 2014

stupot07 said:
We didn't 'drive' many incomes from the Ricoh apart from the ticket sales, 1/3rd of which went straight out to pay the rent and matchday costs.

The interest gives us no benefit, never said they did, unfortunately we haven't got billionaire owners who will give us money and when we make losses of £7m (without paying rent) at the Ricoh money needs to be borrowed and interest paid on it.

Pretty sure it's been shown on here by OSB that management fees is just the flow of money between companies, and not been taken out of the club.

It's all shit.

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

The percentages for rent and match day costs became more of an issue following relegation and the falling gates. Under SISU's stewardship. In the championship, and with sensible player contracts, the business model could still have worked. Again, the rent was too high, but it became a larger issue when the club entered serial decline, under SISU's watch.

Interest coming from loans are a function of two things. Firstly, poor business planning; and secondly, the take-over not being handled correctly from the off. Had these two been right, with good housekeeping, there would be no need for loans, and their associated interest. And both of those areas were SISU's to control. So they get them wrong, 'borrow' liquidity from group, and the main loser is the football club that gets laden with the debt.

And no, the cash won't move, as it can't, as there's none there. But it's stacking, be assured of that.

Where I do agree with you wholeheartedly, is that it's shit. On that, we are certainly as one

stupot07 · May 11, 2014

Honestly MMM are you really in denial that everything was rosy at the club prior to sisu, that access to revenue and the rental deal didn't hinder the in until sisu? How the hell did sisu come to the own the club if everything was hunky dory? I'm not sure how you can have a successful workable model of a championship club on a turnover of £10.5-11m without overspending and needing loans/equity to be injected, other than being a championship-league one yoyo side.

Robinson et al should have put us in admin.

Any this has gone off topic now so I will leave it at that.

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

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 11, 2014

stupot07 said:
Honestly MMM are you really in denial that everything was rosy at the club prior to sisu, that access to revenue and the rental deal didn't hinder the in until sisu? How the hell did sisu come to the own the club if everything was hunky dory? I'm not sure how you can have a successful workable model of a championship club on a turnover of £10.5-11m without overspending and needing loans/equity to be injected, other than being a championship-league one yoyo side.

Robinson et al should have put us in admin.

Any this has gone off topic now so I will leave it at that.

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

I've already addressed the point about previous regimes, so I'm not going into that one on this thread, as it's been covered, again, on another thread. However, I'm not in denial. Nobody is. I doubt if one person would come forward and state that our woes commenced when SISU arrived. Anyone who did claim that would - for the record - be in denial. But those people don't exist

Tonylinc · May 11, 2014

It's all very well for people to now say that the club was in trouble prior to Shitzu's ownership and that might very well be the case BUT they had it within their power to change that the minute they became owners but failed to do so. Why?

stupot07 · May 11, 2014

Tonylinc said:
It's all very well for people to now say that the club was in trouble prior to Shitzu's ownership and that might very well be the case BUT they had it within their power to change that the minute they became owners but failed to do so. Why?

Geez, that might very well have been the case? Is there any doubt it wasn't the case? Why did Robinson et al sell to sisu?

On you're other point they stupidly thought that gambling on spending on young talent and fluking promotion was a better strategy than addressing the unsustainable wage bill and sorting out the rent/revenue/ownership issues, which should have been the first thing they did, even if it had resulted in relegation back then.

ccfcway · May 11, 2014

stupot07 said:
they stupidly thought that gambling on spending on young talent and fluking promotion was a better strategy than addressing the unsustainable wage bill and sorting out the rent/revenue/ownership issues, which should have been the first thing they did, even if it had resulted in relegation back then.

yer, i am pretty sure they could have done both things at the same times. There was only so many days they spent on the Danny Fox / Scott Dann paperwork.

The rent issue was never mentioned. I dont get why, when they took all the shares off the fans, they also couldnt say "this deal will not be completed unless a rent review is in place"

James Smith · May 12, 2014

Tonylinc said:
It's all very well for people to now say that the club was in trouble prior to Shitzu's ownership and that might very well be the case BUT they had it within their power to change that the minute they became owners but failed to do so. Why?

Joy sort of admitted that they'd made mistakes and she hadn't taken as much of an interest in our club and the situation as she should have done. There have been mistakes on both sides and we're where we are because of them. Personally I put some of the blame on Richardson for making gambles with money we didn't have and buying players the manager didn't ask for or need. What was unfortunate was that he was the largest shareholder at the time. For me the problems that followed were a direct result of his tenure and too great financially for those who followed to solve them.

Yes we got to see some good football but at the same time we were writing cheques that our club couldn't cash. What we needed was Sisu to come in and shore up the financial foundations and then build a team on those. Obviously as a major part of the getting the foundations sorted the rent needed to be looked at as well as the matchday revenue .There's no point as most people know in building on weak foundations but that's what Sisu appear to have done. Then when we were relegated if we had more stable finances it wouldn't have been such a financial hit to our club or the Sisu investors.

Just a personal opinion and yours may differ.

ccfcway · May 12, 2014

James Smith said:
Joy sort of admitted that they'd made mistakes and she hadn't taken as much of an interest in our club and the situation as she should have done. T.

Yep, but she said that after Fisher said the same, which was after Onye said the same.

Spionkop · May 12, 2014

This tells you all you need to know about Sisu's regime at our club.
Elvis quoted in past couple of days. To me it reads like a veiled threat to Sisu from SP.

“Running this club properly when you consider Financial Fair Play and the fact we’re playing in front of 1,600 supporters, I think you can do your own maths. It’s not particularly easy for us to compete with any clubs from the higher divisions."

ccfcway · May 12, 2014

Spionkop said:
This tells you all you need to know about Sisu's regime at our club.
Elvis quoted in past couple of days. To me it reads like a veiled threat to Sisu from SP.

“Running this club properly when you consider Financial Fair Play and the fact we’re playing in front of 1,600 supporters, I think you can do your own maths. It’s not particularly easy for us to compete with any clubs from the higher divisions."

We are struggling to compete with clubs in our division, let alone the higher ones !

wince · May 12, 2014

We didn't 'drive' many incomes from the Ricoh apart from the ticket sales, 1/3rd of which went straight out to pay the rent and matchday costs.

Sponorship and corprate were big earners for the club at the ricoh

sky blue john · May 12, 2014

How much will the Acl's 590k cost CCFC once you take into account The following.
1) The extra Arvo interest !
2) Related solicitors fees !
3) Paul Appletons fees !

wingy · May 12, 2014

wince said:
Sponorship and corprate were big earners for the club at the ricoh

The cost of playing out of the Arena represented around 10% of turnover based on the final offer before Admin .

what would be a typical ratio in our division or the one above ,or Funding a Stadium from scratch?

wingy · May 12, 2014

sky blue john said:
How much will the Acl's 590k cost CCFC once you take into account The following.
1) The extra Arvo interest !
2) Related solicitors fees !
3) Paul Appletons fees !

Around £35M less less than completing 43 yrs of lease /rent arrangement @ £1.2m per season?

sky blue john · May 12, 2014

wingy said:
sky blue john said:

How much will the Acl's 590k cost CCFC once you take into account The following.
1) The extra Arvo interest !
2) Related solicitors fees !
3) Paul Appletons fees ![/QUOT

Around £35M less less than completing 43 yrs of lease /rent arrangement @ £1.2m per season?

Click to expand...

Lol !!!
You know like everyone on here that would not be the case now.

GaryPendrysEyes · May 12, 2014

Sisu run the business, they agree(d) contracts, they agree loans and fees. If the bottom line is utterly shit after 6 years in charge, then its quite right that they be held to account- especially as they have decimated revenue, pissed off most 'customers' and have no strategy! The buck stops with them.

Can CCFC afford current 1.8 million interest ? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

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

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency