Coventry pay to resurface Sixfields pitch as waggot predicts us playing there

[RoboCCFC90]

Why the feck are we paying anything towards it though? End of July and there is even grass on the parks pitches so what are we actually paying for, thicker grass, a deeper shade of green, grass that tickles your balls when you tackle or just more bullshit to try and force peoples hands. I'm afraid Waggot is cut from the same cloth as the other lying turds.

The only thing I can think of being implemented at this time is a better standard of turf or a better drainage system, that's if Sixfields had one in the first place!

I am sure CCFC in the eventually of playing at Sixfields again would not want the congested fixture list they did in the final part of last season.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Grendel our own industry (Automotive) does just the same.
I have worked with numerous managers who have been dismissed paid off and than started a new job a week later,
It all depends on the contract and the situation.
Companies don't like to sack people for performance, so pay and leave is gradually becoming the norm.
Believe me I know.......

No they are just contracted and I imagine the contractor is the football league which is why they attract NI and tax at source. If they were employed you could sack Adam Barton for example and owe him nothing. Sadly you sack him and you pay off his contract and he can get a job tomorrow in the same industry without returning the money to his prior employer. I've never seen any company that employs people on that basis.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Possibly, however when you have previous Councillors stating things like "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own the Ricoh" and the other previous actions of idiocy you can see why it hasn't happened.

Sisu did make an offer we have been told however the sticking point was Matchday revenues, those on this forum that state they are irrelevant are mistaken I am afraid.

Matchday revenues aren't irrelevant, however I just fail to see the grand importance of them.

If you, Sisu or anyone else can explain in a typical season how much concourse f&b profits are worth then I would be prepared to listen.

To just say however that matchday revenues are the cause of the problem without explaining why is vague to say the least.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Possibly, however when you have previous Councillors stating things like "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own the Ricoh" and the other previous actions of idiocy you can see why it hasn't happened.

Sisu did make an offer we have been told however the sticking point was Matchday revenues, those on this forum that state they are irrelevant are mistaken I am afraid.

They are irrelevant for a short term deal while the new stadium is built. This is what SISU tell us they are doing.

If they want to drop that plan (or as some might suspect, admit it was never going to happen), and try to negotiate for a long term deal or a purchase of the stadium - at which point match day revenues become very relevant - they first have to try to undo the damage their confrontational approach of recent years has brought.

Can a leopard change it spots, or perhaps more pertinently, can it persuade people that it can?

 

[skybluelee]

They are irrelevant for a short term deal while the new stadium is built. This is what SISU tell us they are doing.

If they want to drop that plan (or as some might suspect, admit it was never going to happen), and try to negotiate for a long term deal or a purchase of the stadium - at which point match day revenues become very relevant - they first have to try to undo the damage their confrontational approach of recent years has brought.

Can a leopard change it spots, or perhaps more pertinently, can it persuade people that it can?

Exactly. Fisher clearly stated that any return would be on a short term basis whilst they build their fantasy stadium. Therefore matchday revenues are utterly irrelevant. The additional income that would be gained from moving back to the Ricoh in terms of sponsorship, tickets, merchandise etc would utterly swamp even the most generous of matchday revenue deals.

 

[Danceswithhorses]

No they are just contracted and I imagine the contractor is the football league which is why they attract NI and tax at source. If they were employed you could sack Adam Barton for example and owe him nothing. Sadly you sack him and you pay off his contract and he can get a job tomorrow in the same industry without returning the money to his prior employer. I've never seen any company that employs people on that basis.

So the fact that FA rules say that players are employees, has no bearing on your view that they are not ?

 

[Grendel]

So the fact that FA rules say that players are employees, has no bearing on your view that they are not ?

Do normal rules of employment apply to them?

 

[Kingokings204]

Possibly, however when you have previous Councillors stating things like "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own the Ricoh" and the other previous actions of idiocy you can see why it hasn't happened.

Sisu did make an offer we have been told however the sticking point was Matchday revenues, those on this forum that state they are irrelevant are mistaken I am afraid.

There are irrelevant and they are relevant.

They are irrelevant for a short term deal as if sisu are building this new stadium (never going to happen) then they will get match day income then and all the ticket sales and sponsors will easily cover anything else.

They are relevant as obviously ccfc should have rights to it but they sold them fair and square and if they want them then they either but them back or build a new stadium.

They are irrelevant as the reason we are in Northampton has nothing to do with match day revenues whatsoever confirmed by a high court judge who states the only the reason we are they as if "sisu stop paying the rent and move out then buying a stake in ACL is the only possible way to gain their investment back"

It is relevant as if sisu had saved all this legal money and used the Wilson money we would of owned half of all ACL by now and not lost so many fans and caused so much heartache. Only 5.5m they wanted. Well Wilson and Clarke was 3.5m plus Christie plus million of legal fees for both sides and you have it and you have half of ACL.

 

[Grendel]

So the fact that FA rules say that players are employees, has no bearing on your view that they are not ?

https://betting.betfair.com/footbal.../footballers-are-selfemployed-s-1-081107.html

 

[letsallsingtogether]

https://betting.betfair.com/footbal.../footballers-are-selfemployed-s-1-081107.html

Here are two more answers off the internet looks you'll have to keep arguing seems to be a grey area.

A professional football player works for a team on a contract basis. As a contracted employee, the player can take the same variety of business deductions as any other self-employed worker or independent contractor across the country.



If the individual is a contracted player receiving payment for playing football then he is an employee of the club
Read more http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/are-professional-footballers-classed-as-self-employed-or-employed/18689135#ixzz3925Poqx

 

[wingy]

Possibly, however when you have previous Councillors stating things like "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own the Ricoh" and the other previous actions of idiocy you can see why it hasn't happened.

Sisu did make an offer we have been told however the sticking point was Matchday revenues, those on this forum that state they are irrelevant are mistaken I am afraid.

There Is absolutely Zero evidence that SISU have made an offer to ACL to rent the Stadium,no Confirmation anywhere ,only secret meetings with fans ,open letters ,chinese whispers of an announcement which would be made 3 weeks ago and engaging the fans desperation to see It's own team back In the City.

The only time SISU will seriously consider taking a deal to revert to a rental of the RICOH IS If they fail to knock ACL over and need some level( much reduced) of Fanbase to Fill a new Shrewsbury style Stadium.IMO.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

BFRSBA, DTD & KOK, You all have stated the importance in your opinion with regard to Matchday revenues, I personally I don't understand the view you make, for instance if we were a two Club City and we played fixtures at a Ground that we were renting for whatever reason, you would want to gain access to Matchday Revenues on the day your Club plays in that Stadium?

The Club would also have to pay Matchday expenses as well, so why are the Club not entitled to Matchday revenues?

Now without being dim, please explain to me why some of the customers based expenditure that is being invested into watching the Football Club is an irrelevant stream of revenue for the Football Club.

I am sorry I just don't see it..

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

OK, once more with feeling.....

1. SISU's position is that they are going to build a new stadium.
2. It will take a minimum of 3 to 4 years (in my opinion) to do this.
3. That leaves an interim period where it seems fair to assume that the only options are to play in Northampton or at the Ricoh.
4. Looking to maximise revenue over that period, it is I think uncontrovertial to state that revenue at the Ricoh without food and beverage income would massively exceed any income that we could reasonably expect at Northampton.

That is why I consider "match day revenue" to be a trivial/irrelevant/unimportant matter in the larger context of the discussions that may (we hope) soon take place.

The above comments of course ignore the massive benefit to the club of keeping and hopefully growing a support base if we come back to the Ricoh as opposed to destroying it if we stay in Northampton.

 

[covcity4life]

council should give up match day revenue whether the club are better off in cov or not.

stop kissing their ass you twats

 

[Monners]

So that's Aspurgers and Torrettes covered in one day

 

[Astute]

BFRSBA, DTD & KOK, You all have stated the importance in your opinion with regard to Matchday revenues, I personally I don't understand the view you make, for instance if we were a two Club City and we played fixtures at a Ground that we were renting for whatever reason, you would want to gain access to Matchday Revenues on the day your Club plays in that Stadium?

The Club would also have to pay Matchday expenses as well, so why are the Club not entitled to Matchday revenues?

Now without being dim, please explain to me why some of the customers based expenditure that is being invested into watching the Football Club is an irrelevant stream of revenue for the Football Club.

I am sorry I just don't see it..

I am sure you have read about my thoughts and how many agree with me as their thoughts are similar. But here we go yet again.

Someone's views might not be what would be what would be the best for our club. But it is what is realistic for our club to achieve.

What would be best for our club would be to have the freehold handed to it with all contracts paid off. All revenue streams put into out club. The freehold put out of reach of SISU so it would secure our clubs future. But none of this can happen. It won't happen whatever we do. So why waste time and legal fees trying to make it happen?

SISU need to negotiate with Higgs for the 50% share they paid for. The legal costs and lower income from one year at Northampton would have paid for this. Higgs paid 6.5m for it and agreed to sell it to SISU for 5.5m, but we all know what happened there. Why should SISU get for free what Higgs paid for? And the fact of there being no rental contract anymore is a poor excuse.

Why should CCC pay off all contracts and hand the freehold over? Councils normally keep hold of all freeholds. But there could have been a deal to be made if SISU had done the right thing. But they never have and there is no debate on the matter.

And on the matter of the freehold being safe for our club if it was given to SISU after CCC gave state funding which SISU are so much against. SISU have proved plenty of times that they are not trustworthy. We know that they would hold the arena separately to our club. It would be for the benefit of their shareholders. Would this benefit the future of our club?

It isn't easy to decide the best of what could happen for the future of our club. But it is easy to figure out what can't and won't happen. And it is a waste of time wanting it to happen.

 

[Monners]

I am sure you have read about my thoughts and how many agree with me as their thoughts are similar. But here we go yet again.

Someone's views might not be what would be what would be the best for our club. But it is what is realistic for our club to achieve.

What would be best for our club would be to have the freehold handed to it with all contracts paid off. All revenue streams put into out club. The freehold put out of reach of SISU so it would secure our clubs future. But none of this can happen. It won't happen whatever we do. So why waste time and legal fees trying to make it happen?

SISU need to negotiate with Higgs for the 50% share they paid for. The legal costs and lower income from one year at Northampton would have paid for this. Higgs paid 6.5m for it and agreed to sell it to SISU for 5.5m, but we all know what happened there. Why should SISU get for free what Higgs paid for? And the fact of there being no rental contract anymore is a poor excuse.

Why should CCC pay off all contracts and hand the freehold over? Councils normally keep hold of all freeholds. But there could have been a deal to be made if SISU had done the right thing. But they never have and there is no debate on the matter.

And on the matter of the freehold being safe for our club if it was given to SISU after CCC gave state funding which SISU are so much against. SISU have proved plenty of times that they are not trustworthy. We know that they would hold the arena separately to our club. It would be for the benefit of their shareholders. Would this benefit the future of our club?

It isn't easy to decide the best of what could happen for the future of our club. But it is easy to figure out what can't and won't happen. And it is a waste of time wanting it to happen.

I may forward this for the Q&A session with TF tonight.

 

[rightumpty]

Words fail me!! 500 season tickets maximum. Possibly 100 paid for vs. 8,000 at Ricoh should we return. The SISU muppet show just don't get it!! Always quoting the same old bull shite!

We just have to keep laughing otherwise we'll all be bloody barmy.

 

[shmmeee]

I may forward this for the Q&A session with TF tonight.

Can you ask him why the offer was made to the FL not ACL?

Also (just for giggles) what the delay was as Sandra Garlick originally claimed planning would be in by March. Has another land deal fallen through? Are the council still scaring off sellers as he claimed before?

And has the JR appeal gone in?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

OK, once more with feeling.....

1. SISU's position is that they are going to build a new stadium.
2. It will take a minimum of 3 to 4 years (in my opinion) to do this.
3. That leaves an interim period where it seems fair to assume that the only options are to play in Northampton or at the Ricoh.
4. Looking to maximise revenue over that period, it is I think uncontrovertial to state that revenue at the Ricoh without food and beverage income would massively exceed any income that we could reasonably expect at Northampton.

That is why I consider "match day revenue" to be a trivial/irrelevant/unimportant matter in the larger context of the discussions that may (we hope) soon take place.

The above comments of course ignore the massive benefit to the club of keeping and hopefully growing a support base if we come back to the Ricoh as opposed to destroying it if we stay in Northampton.

But again, you are happy to consider the revenues "trivial/irrelevant/unimportant" however the Football Club wants to benefit from revenues it generates itself, this is not unreasonable, I think this is very fair, problem being is they can't and some people feel it's not the sticking point, it's one of the many reasons we left the Ricoh in the first place so I'd consider it quite a sizeable one..

We all hope discussions between both parties should soon start, but if the Club returns to the Ricoh irrelevant of the length of time, it must benefit from all the revenues it generates like any other business.

How this can be deemed irrelevant to the overall matter is beyond belief.

 

[percy]

So that's Aspurgers and Torrettes covered in one day

and Dyslexia ???

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

But again, you are happy to consider the revenues "trivial/irrelevant/unimportant" however the Football Club wants to benefit from revenues it generates itself, this is not unreasonable, I think this is very fair, problem being is they can't and some people feel it's not the sticking point, it's one of the many reasons we left the Ricoh in the first place so I'd consider it quite a sizeable one..

We all hope discussions between both parties should soon start, but if the Club returns to the Ricoh irrelevant of the length of time, it must benefit from all the revenues it generates like any other business.

How this can be deemed irrelevant to the overall matter is beyond belief.

Then I think we will just have to agree to differ.

 

[Sky Blue Dal]

I've not read the article so I could be way off. But why aren't those Northampton bellends paying for it.
They must be laughing their tits off.

Hill .. I suspect this is all spin. I would not be surprised if they have had done a deal with NTFC to pay for there pitch for a slight reduction in rent OR a sweetener which maybe used when or if they ever decide to break the rent clause and return to the Ricoh.

They are playing mind games again.

 

[Astute]

But again, you are happy to consider the revenues "trivial/irrelevant/unimportant" however the Football Club wants to benefit from revenues it generates itself, this is not unreasonable, I think this is very fair, problem being is they can't and some people feel it's not the sticking point, it's one of the many reasons we left the Ricoh in the first place so I'd consider it quite a sizeable one..

We all hope discussions between both parties should soon start, but if the Club returns to the Ricoh irrelevant of the length of time, it must benefit from all the revenues it generates like any other business.

How this can be deemed irrelevant to the overall matter is beyond belief.

Here we go again.

Our club was moved away from Coventry because the rent was too high. Fisher shook on 400k a year. Joy overruled him. Then they were offered free then 150k for the next two seasons. Perfect to see them through with this new stadium build they keep telling us about. They have even shown us a couple of pictures. Not bad for two years of planning.

Oh dear. Rent less than being in Northampton. It is all about the pie money. Always has been although never mentioned until now.

Or do you agree with the judge that it was all about the freehold for a pittance and no less? Are you going to make up reasons for not dropping the JR appeals now you know there isn't a smoking gun?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Here we go again.

Our club was moved away from Coventry because the rent was too high. Fisher shook on 400k a year. Joy overruled him. Then they were offered free then 150k for the next two seasons. Perfect to see them through with this new stadium build they keep telling us about. They have even shown us a couple of pictures. Not bad for two years of planning.

Oh dear. Rent less than being in Northampton. It is all about the pie money. Always has been although never mentioned until now.

Or do you agree with the judge that it was all about the freehold for a pittance and no less? Are you going to make up reasons for not dropping the JR appeals now you know there isn't a smoking gun?

They shook on that deal but pulled out of it because there was no access to Matchday revenues! That was said during the JR.

On paper it is a good deal, but it needs access to Matchday revenues on the Clubs behalf, this is revenue that the Club generates, it's entitled to these!

 

[shmmeee]

Robbo you're mixing two ideas here mate.

1) SHORT TERM - we're better at the Ricoh than Sixfields even without extra revenue. Fact. The finances back this up. It's not arguable.

2) LONG TERM - the club need extra revenue to be competitive. This is arguable. F&B would've brought in less than 5% of our turnover. It's possible that we can create other revenues if we own our own ground.

To expand, there are a few ways we can achieve 2: get a better deal at the Ricoh (this will involve negotiations), buy the Ricoh (this would involve a bid from Sisu), distress ACL as hope that somehow you end up with the Ricoh (this is a multi-year strategy), build your own ground.

There are TWO "Ricoh deals" here. One that get us home while the long term is sorted, for that revenues are irrelevant. One that let's us stay there long term and become viable as a business, revenues may well be important here (again, this is far from proven, just because it's repeated a lot doesn't mean it's true.)

Hope that clears it up a bit.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Robbo you're mixing two ideas here mate.

1) SHORT TERM - we're better at the Ricoh than Sixfields even without extra revenue. Fact. The finances back this up. It's not arguable.

2) LONG TERM - the club need extra revenue to be competitive. This is arguable. F&B would've brought in less than 5% of our turnover. It's possible that we can create other revenues if we own our own ground.

I am Shmmeee but the length of term is irrelevant, what's to say that if a deal wasn't offered with these revenues in the short term, then it could not lead to a longer deal being agreed?

We all know a new Stadium isn't being built, our long term future is at the Ricoh Arena..

 

[shmmeee]

I am Shmmeee but the length of term is irrelevant, what's to say that if a deal wasn't offered with these revenues in the short term, then it could not lead to a longer deal being agreed?

We all know a new Stadium isn't being built, our long term future is at the Ricoh Arena..

If a long term deal could be agreed, there's no need for a short term deal.

We'd all love it if ACL an Sisu could suddenly agree terms after 2 years of getting further and further apart in their positions but it's just not likely. If its to happen it will require negotiations restarting and trust building up. ACL simply will not open its books to an organisation it doesn't trust, we can't change that.

That's why there should be no restrictions on a short term deal. No rent. No revenues. Nothing. The point of a short term deal is to stop punishing the fans while we see if the children can kiss and make up.

You say our future is at the Ricoh, but there's a very good chance that what CCFC want and what ACL can give are mutually exclusive. While we figure that out, let's come home.

One note: any short term return should have hard time limits on the negotiations. Let's finish this and if agreements can't be made in that time then let's build a new ground if that is genuinely what's best for CCFC.

Edit: also, as much as it may grate as a fan. The club is most certainly not entitled to get back something it sold without paying. Or should we roll up to Bournemouth asking for Wilson back for free?

It may be that through tough negotiation/the kindness of ACL's heart we do get them back. But we're not entitled.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

I am Shmmeee but the length of term is irrelevant, what's to say that if a deal wasn't offered with these revenues in the short term, then it could not lead to a longer deal being agreed?

We all know a new Stadium isn't being built, our long term future is at the Ricoh Arena..

SShhhhhhh Robbo.....the football league might be eavesdropping ?!? - gonna cost us another 10 points, and we'll all say it's your fault

 

[lapsed_skyblue]

but it needs access to Matchday revenues on the Clubs behalf, this is revenue that the Club generates, it's entitled to these!

Entitled??!!
We're talking about a short term rental deal. They are "entitled" to whatever they can negotiate and mutually agree with the other party in the negotiations. "Mutual agreement" is a more appropriate situation.
If they cannot achieve a satisfactory agreement then they can always create a scenario where they can control the environment to their satisfaction such as building their own stadium. Oh, how's that going?

 

[Como]

But again, you are happy to consider the revenues "trivial/irrelevant/unimportant" however the Football Club wants to benefit from revenues it generates itself, this is not unreasonable, I think this is very fair, problem being is they can't and some people feel it's not the sticking point, it's one of the many reasons we left the Ricoh in the first place so I'd consider it quite a sizeable one..

We all hope discussions between both parties should soon start, but if the Club returns to the Ricoh irrelevant of the length of time, it must benefit from all the revenues it generates like any other business.

How this can be deemed irrelevant to the overall matter is beyond belief.

They are factually quite small at the moment, with a crowd of 2,000 or so, how can they amount to very much? I never bought anything inside the Ricoh, some did but even there I wonder how much it added up to. Must be quite expensive setting up and stocking for a couple of hours.

It is all negotiable, the Club would no doubt not run any catering, they would sub contract it out, so Compass could still do it.

The rent with the car parking and catering profits would obviously be more that with out it.

It is only for a few years anyway, and whatever deal is done would be better for the Club than what they are getting now.

 

[shmmeee]

I think it's worth noting that although it's gone unsaid a lot, the real aim is the development land around the arena. How much this would help the club is debatable.

 

[Como]

The Council own the freehold.

There to my knowledge has never been any suggestion that they are interest in or willing to sell it.

Ideally ACL would own CCFC or CCFC would own ACL. I really can not see either happening. If SISU acquired ACL would it be merged into the Club? I think not. CCFC would still be a tenant.

A new ground would not it seem be owned by CCFC either.

If the issue is just about having the revenues pass through the Club's books then I am sure there are ways of doing this, if the Club want the revenue stream that somebody else owns then they need to buy it. Why would anybody give it away?

 

[Astute]

I think it's worth noting that although it's gone unsaid a lot, the real aim is the development land around the arena. How much this would help the club is debatable.

Since when has anything been about our club?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

They are irrelevant for a short term deal while the new stadium is built. This is what SISU tell us they are doing.

Yup, I agree with that.

For better or worse, if plan A is a new stadium, then everything else goes out the window re: finances etc, beyond he ability to have a short term deal, and it not being utterly ludicrous to the extreme.

Partly why it'd be worth speaking to them however, appeal or no appeal, as if a new ground is indeed plan A, there'll be some flexibility there