lewys33
Well-Known Member
We don't get paid enough to know the answer
What's the answer? Maintaining the status quo of just renting, albeit at a lower rent?
What's the answer? Maintaining the status quo of just renting, albeit at a lower rent?
All for 23-25 days use per annum.
Is this really the case? At Sixfields it is for sure but at the Ricoh was there no club presence other than on matchday? What about the club shop and club offices? I'm sure those operating businesses locally can tell us the going rate for the square footage used by the club, you'd really need to take that off if you want to talk about a figure for matches only.
If you were trying to run the club starting afresh, then I think you'd be able to make a profit by accepting a rent of up to £400k. Apart from the interest charges I would imagine staff costs and other overheads are pretty low now.
Obviously SISU want some or all of their investors money back, and that's the problem. Making a small profit each year, and running a relatively successful football club isn't going to get them the money as quickly as they want.
They need to get hold of something that is worth a lot, without paying very much, that's the only way they will recoup some of the money in a short timescale.
If you were trying to run the club starting afresh, then I think you'd be able to make a profit by accepting a rent of up to £400k. Apart from the interest charges I would imagine staff costs and other overheads are pretty low now.
Obviously SISU want some or all of their investors money back, and that's the problem. Making a small profit each year, and running a relatively successful football club isn't going to get them the money as quickly as they want.
They need to get hold of something that is worth a lot, without paying very much, that's the only way they will recoup some of the money in a short timescale.
Regardless of rental level or however owns us, a rent only model leaves us with one of the 3-4 lowest turnovers in the championship based on 15k fans, with 9-10 teams with lower attendances.
What will it be with our own stadium?
What will it be with our own stadium?
Didn't Tim make a claim that ACL overcharged them for services whilst at the Ricoh?
Didn't Tim make a claim that ACL overcharged them for services whilst at the Ricoh?
I doubt the charges were anywhere near £7m, so maybe ML should spend his time looking into other important issues.
He has to get the important things sorted first, if we're paying 2p a page to photocopy instead of 1p the club could be in big trouble!
Regardless of rental level or however owns us, a rent only model leaves us with one of the 3-4 lowest turnovers in the championship based on 15k fans, with 9-10 teams with lower attendances.
Didn't Tim make a claim that ACL overcharged them for services whilst at the Ricoh?
I seriously doubt any lost revenue from not owning a stadium warrants the cost of building or buying one.
We are not in a position to afford either option, and if SISU's investors put the money forward to build or buy one then the interest charges will kill us.
I wouldn't bet on us being in the Championship for a while yet. I don't think the team will be as strong next season.
I niece they were charged a disproportionately high rate and had lodged a claim of £400,000 overpayment.
Wasn't that the Council not ACL. Different companies remember, no connections, move along, nothing to see here.
Er according most on here they are very much the sane company - so no there is a lot to see and in June we will all see it.
Er according most on here they are very much the sane company - so no there is a lot to see and in June we will all see it.
He has to get the important things sorted first, if we're paying 2p a page to photocopy instead of 1p the club could be in big trouble!
So the club didn't have a copier? Wonder if they had a shredder.
Can we please stop banging on the about the sliding scale rent we've never seen the details to. Sounds good, but we don't know the detail, we can assume it still would have been £1.2-1.3m in the championship anyway which was way too much. For all we know (and non of us do) it could have been
Championship £1.2-1.3m
PL £2.m
League one £1m
League two £800k.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Regardless of rental level or however owns us, a rent only model leaves us with one of the 3-4 lowest turnovers in the championship based on 15k fans, with 9-10 teams with lower attendances.
Yeah. If only there was some way to buy back the revenues we sold at below market value.
Oh, wait.
Seriously Stu, do you not get that the deal for the Ricoh was never supposed to be no revenues? Everyone was waiting for the club to reclaim what's theirs, but they didn't want to. That should tell you something.
Of course the club is viable on a rental deal. No different from anything else. If the rental cost is less than the interest on a mortgage and if the revenues are in place (as there were at the start of the Ricoh project) then why on earth not? If anything £400k/year rent is an absolute steal compared to paying the interest on £30m.
Then can we still bang on about the rent-free offer made for this season!?
We also know that they were offered £150k for next season so why are you making up these ridiculous figures?
You are making absurd statement "..we can assume it would still have been £1.2-£1.3m in the championship..."
WHY WOULD WE ASSUME THAT? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC.
Haven't both those grounds been redeveloped etc. by the respective tenants at their own expense?
Yeah. If only there was some way to buy back the revenues we sold at below market value.
Oh, wait.
Seriously Stu, do you not get that the deal for the Ricoh was never supposed to be no revenues? Everyone was waiting for the club to reclaim what's theirs, but they didn't want to. That should tell you something.
Of course the club is viable on a rental deal. No different from anything else. If the rental cost is less than the interest on a mortgage and if the revenues are in place (as there were at the start of the Ricoh project) then why on earth not? If anything £400k/year rent is an absolute steal compared to paying the interest on £30m.
Explain my logic re: sliding scale? Well let's look at what ACL told the Trust as part of Q6, in the Q and A.
6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher.
So we were already in the Championship, so it's reasonable to assume that the 'lower leagues' refers to Leagues one and two. It states that the base rent would have been hover in PL. It didn't mention any changes to the 'current' league (ie the championship) so I can only assume the base rate would remain the same.
It also mentioned escalators for attendance. The were also mentioned further on, as part of the proposed £400k offer:
CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.
Is it also feasible to assume that the sliding scale attendance escalators would have been not dissimilar to the above?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It's 4 times the rent of portman road or the city ground - its hardly a steal.
Stupot, the club were offered very low rents over past year. Give it up, you're defending a hopeless case. You're splitting hairs at every turn.
Stupot, the club were offered very low rents over past year. Give it up, you're defending a hopeless case. You're splitting hairs at every turn.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?