Can we not raise the rent between us... (4 Viewers)

wingy

Well-Known Member
Perhaps we could pay the players wages too, whilst the so called owners of OUR club relax in the air conditioned Luxury of their Yachts moored in the Harbour at Monte Carlo and the Cayman Isles, Moaning that the vintage of todays Champagne, was not quite up to yesterdays.

does It really matter if It gives the FL room to shackle them??
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Great idea. The fact is there is a similar offer on the table from Hoffman. Financially there is no reason/benefit in the club being moved to NTCF for 3-5 years.

Lets just hope the FL recognise this.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Great idea. The fact is there is a similar offer on the table from Hoffman. Financially there is no reason/benefit in the club being moved to NTCF for 3-5 years.

Lets just hope the FL recognise this.

There is no confirmed offer by Hoffman there is nothing for the FL to recognise.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Great idea. The fact is there is a similar offer on the table from Hoffman. Financially there is no reason/benefit in the club being moved to NTCF for 3-5 years.

Lets just hope the FL recognise this.

It's not a similar offer from Hoffman though...Hoffman pays £400k rent then gets the money back, ergo ccfc are paying the rent....


“I assume that the attendance at the Ricoh would be at least 5,000 per game more than at Sixfields – this is undoubtedly conservative – so 5,000 at an average £15 per ticket for 25 games equals £1.875m extra revenue.

“Otium can take half of this upside for trading purposes; the people who put up the money with me would take a return to cover financing and other costs and any additional revenue would be invested in the Academy.
 

Lightyear

New Member
Good idea. I would be up for this. Perhaps OSB or other finance/business gurus can advise on how to go about setting this up?
 

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
Its a little to easy to dismiss initiatives like this ,remembering that It was a SISU one that took a similar amount out of their own budget when we were In the championship

with price reductions and we've seen the effect of that. Its very late In the day and Hoffman brokered something similar but he is tainted and it looked like there would be a return required .How on earth could the FL reject the Club playing In its home Stadium In such circumstances .This is a No Brainer, from the Fans for the Club!!
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
If the fans raised a significant sum towards the rent.
SISU would not take it but the offer would make headlines and again show what a sham SISU's explanation that they have no other option is rubbish.
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
No disrespect to the OP, but this idea(I can see where he's coming from) is a little like the "Eskimo" welcoming a stranger into his home, feeding him, giving him shelter, and finally giving him the rights to "Give his wife one"......All for no payment....Wait a minute though! Isn't this the same thing thats been going on for over a year now?
 

Pete in Portugal

Well-Known Member
I agree with Prefect. This is not a question of SISU's ability to pay the rent or whether there is a business case for moving to Northampton. In my opinion, their game plan has been, and continues to be, based on the assumption that they can financially distress ACL and buy the Ricoh on the cheap. They have been single minded in pursuit of this plan and no offer from Hoffman or the Fans will deflect them from this objective.

As for the FL changing their minds if the fans raised enough dosh to cover the rent, unfortunately wingy, I don't think there's any chance that they'd do this. Apart from anything else, if the FL do anything to undermine their plans, I believe that they are concerned that SISU might take legal action against them. Some people have speculated that SISU have some sort of legal case against the FL because of an error they made with the contracts/player registrations/golden share some time before Ltd. went into Admin.. If this is correct, then it means SISU have, (and will continue to have), significant 'leverage' in any negotiations with the FL.
 
Last edited:

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
It's not a similar offer from Hoffman though...Hoffman pays £400k rent then gets the money back, ergo ccfc are paying the rent....


“I assume that the attendance at the Ricoh would be at least 5,000 per game more than at Sixfields – this is undoubtedly conservative – so 5,000 at an average £15 per ticket for 25 games equals £1.875m extra revenue.

“Otium can take half of this upside for trading purposes; the people who put up the money with me would take a return to cover financing and other costs and any additional revenue would be invested in the Academy.

The rent is paid out of the additional monies generated by remaining in coventry (larger crowds going to games). It's a no brainier.

The fact is either solution will be dismissed by sisu as it doesn't tie in with their own plans
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
The rent is paid out of the additional monies generated by remaining in coventry (larger crowds going to games). It's a no brainier.

The fact is either solution will be dismissed by sisu as it doesn't tie in with their own plans

But from sisu's pov, they want to leave because they don't want to pay £400k+ rent and not get any match day revenues, so why pay the rent via Hoffman to still get no access to match day revenues. Like Hoffman says the extra fans will bring enough revenue for them to pay Hoffman (the rent) back, so they would be paying the rent.

I'm not saying this in support of their decision to move, just pointing out the logic of why sisu have turned it down.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top