Do you need to own your own stadium to be successful? (1 Viewer)

covboy1987 · Jun 23, 2014

Last season as an example SWANSEA City enjoyed perhaps their best ever season on the pitch – and the numbers stacked up off it.
Swansea were the most profitable club iacross the premiership 2012-13 campaign, when they earned £21 million before tax.
[FONT=open_sans, sans-serif]That was the season when Michael Laudrup's team finished ninth in the table and won the Capital One Cup – hence it is regarded as perhaps the best campaign Swansea have ever had.[/FONT]

[FONT=open_sans, sans-serif]Not getting into the hows and why's of how much they pay rent and that they share there stadium with a rugby team- facts are facts and financial results are there for anyone to see- Swansea Rent there stadium from the council and last year were the most profitable team in the premiership [/FONT]

ccfcway · Jun 23, 2014

every TV pundit that RFC has seen says you need your own stadium

Sick Boy · Jun 23, 2014

You don't necessarily need to own it, but a peppercorn rent and access to revenue is a must.

Do Swansea get any money from sponsorship? If it wasn't the football club, how much sponsorship money would have come into the Ricoh? How much of this did CCFC receive?

Grendel · Jun 23, 2014

Sick Boy said:
You don't necessarily need to own it, but a peppercorn rent and access to revenue is a must.

Do Swansea get any money from sponsorship? If it wasn't the football club, how much sponsorship money would have come into the Ricoh? How much of this did CCFC receive?

They received a third of the management company free of charge.

Grendel · Jun 23, 2014

ccfcway said:
every TV pundit that RFC has seen says you need your own stadium

If you have Coventry as your council that is a given.

Jack Griffin · Jun 23, 2014

Sick Boy said:
You don't necessarily need to own it, but a peppercorn rent and access to revenue is a must.

Do Swansea get any money from sponsorship? If it wasn't the football club, how much sponsorship money would have come into the Ricoh? How much of this did CCFC receive?

Well moving out has lost pretty much all the sponsorship the club had.
For the first time in many years Cov Building Society had no sponsorship arrangement with CCFC.
The only local business that did anything was a copy shop.. I think even Sphinx have more sponsors than CCFC at present.

covmark · Jun 23, 2014

Swansea council cherish their football club, and obviously see the benefits of having a successful football club in the city. Coventry council don't really give two hoots.

Sick Boy · Jun 23, 2014

Grendel said:
They received a third of the management company free of charge.

There would be a meltdown on here if such a thing happened to our club.

Sick Boy · Jun 23, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Well moving out has lost pretty much all the sponsorship the club had.
For the first time in many years Cov Building Society had no sponsorship arrangement with CCFC.
The only local business that did anything was a copy shop.. I think even Sphinx have more sponsors than CCFC at present.

Can you outline the amount of money the club received from sponsorship connected to the stadium? I am sure that Ricoh would have paid 10 Million in naming rights for the national streaking centre.

Jack Griffin · Jun 23, 2014

Sick Boy said:
Can you outline the amount of money the club received from sponsorship connected to the stadium? I am sure that Ricoh would have paid 10 Million in naming rights for the national streaking centre.

It is all connected with being in Coventry.. or not.. when the new stadium is built then maybe someone will show an interest..

Sick Boy · Jun 23, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
It is all connected with being in Coventry.. or not.. when the new stadium is built then maybe someone will show an interest..

How much money did the club receive from sponsorship connected to the stadium? Do you believe that ACL would have had so much interest without the football club there?

Sky Blues · Jun 23, 2014

Sick Boy said:
There would be a meltdown on here if such a thing happened to our club.

They already did. Coventry City Council gave CCFC half the stadium management company. Not a third, a half. The club sold that share.

skybluetony176 · Jun 23, 2014

Grendel said:
They received a third of the management company free of charge.

Didn't CCC initially give CCFC a half share in ACL? Lucky we're not in the Cardiff City Council Borough isn't it (well not yet, although the way sisu's version of the "coventry area" keeps growing it wont be long) those stingy B'stards are only giving a third.

(edit) like sky blues also points out

diggerdaley · Jun 23, 2014

Could you trust sisu to run & maintain the Ricoh it would have fallen to bits by now or sold off to another off shore landlord.

skybluetony176 · Jun 23, 2014

Sick Boy said:
Can you outline the amount of money the club received from sponsorship connected to the stadium? I am sure that Ricoh would have paid 10 Million in naming rights for the national streaking centre.

i have to agree with you on this one Sick Note. There is no doubting that the sponsorship of the Ricoh is devalued without the club their and the value added by the club being there should be considered if the sisu and acl ever negotiate a return.

Florence1898 · Jun 23, 2014

No absolutely NOT. Fact being 34 of the 72 Football League Members rent or lease their grounds, a number of other have long leasehold interests, just ask the FL to confirm, if you can get them to respond.

CCFC PimpRail · Jun 23, 2014

Florence1898 said:
No absolutely NOT. Fact being 34 of the 72 Football League Members rent or lease their grounds, a number of other have long leasehold interests, just ask the FL to confirm, if you can get them to respond.

How many of those rent someone else's ground....?

skybluetony176 · Jun 23, 2014

Florence1898 said:
No absolutely NOT. Fact being 34 of the 72 Football League Members rent or lease their grounds, a number of other have long leasehold interests, just ask the FL to confirm, if you can get them to respond.

that cant be right, every footballing financial expert in the universe said so. Joy has polled them all personally :laugh: apparently.

Nick · Jun 23, 2014

Florence1898 said:
No absolutely NOT. Fact being 34 of the 72 Football League Members rent or lease their grounds, a number of other have long leasehold interests, just ask the FL to confirm, if you can get them to respond.

With your facts, I don't suppose you have sort of the amount each club pays per year?

I don't think the stadium needs to be owned outright, but it needs a decent agreement for the club to be there.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 23, 2014

Florence1898 said:
No absolutely NOT. Fact being 34 of the 72 Football League Members rent or lease their grounds, a number of other have long leasehold interests, just ask the FL to confirm, if you can get them to respond.

And many of them, such as Swindon, are absolute basket cases.

duffer · Jun 23, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
And many of them, such as Swindon, are absolute basket cases.

Indeed, as are many that own their own stadium.

Personally, I think the reasonable line to take here is that the club needs access to the income streams that the stadium generates, rather than ownership of the stadium itself.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 23, 2014

duffer said:
Indeed, as are many that own their own stadium.

Personally, I think the reasonable line to take here is that the club needs access to the income streams that the stadium generates, rather than ownership of the stadium itself.

Yup. 125 year lease, peppercorn rent, solely for stadium, let the council do whatever it feels like with the land development elsewhere, compensate Higgs by offering various opportunities within the city for them to take on charitable projects more suited to what *they* are... and club can focus on being a club.

Everyone's a winner.

letsallsingtogether · Jun 23, 2014

Bullshit!!!! Those that know better then us would never agree?
you have to own your own ground have all the revenues have a full house and pay your players minimum wage to be successful.:thinking about:

Every one knows that, Just ask any shareholder?

Its a shame we never looked after our old ground when we owned it maybe then we would not have put up with all this shit.......

Sold our old ground sold our rights to the Ricoh then withheld rent moved to shitfields then just in case people thought it was our fault we take them all to court and some still believe every word they breath.

So it must have been CCC fault, no one else to blame and every other landlord in the land would have put up being treated so badly.(yes right)

Doesn't matter what the rent was should have took the lower offer when they had the chance instead of getting greedy and expecting it all for nothing.

Florence1898 said:
No absolutely NOT. Fact being 34 of the 72 Football League Members rent or lease their grounds, a number of other have long leasehold interests, just ask the FL to confirm, if you can get them to respond.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 23, 2014

letsallsingtogether said:
Its a shame we never looked after our old ground when we owned it maybe then we would not have put up with all this shit.......

Indeed, although kind of proves the point that a well-run club goes hand in hand with owning their own ground, and once they let that go, there's the slippery slope to come...

FWIW it's not the 'ownership' as such that causes the well-run club, more it tends to be symptomatic of a club that has its priorities right.

letsallsingtogether · Jun 23, 2014

And do you believe that our current owners would get its priorities right for the football club?

That is what the real argument is on letting them get their hands on the Ricoh.
I personally think NO so do not want them to own it, they have fucked us over too many times in their short tenure of our club...

Once they have gone then we need to look at it again.

Deleted member 5849 said:
Indeed, although kind of proves the point that a well-run club goes hand in hand with owning their own ground, and once they let that go, there's the slippery slope to come...

FWIW it's not the 'ownership' as such that causes the well-run club, more it tends to be symptomatic of a club that has its priorities right.

duffer · Jun 23, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Yup. 125 year lease, peppercorn rent, solely for stadium, let the council do whatever it feels like with the land development elsewhere, compensate Higgs by offering various opportunities within the city for them to take on charitable projects more suited to what *they* are... and club can focus on being a club.

Everyone's a winner.

This is one of those simple solutions to a complex problem again, right?

I think there is a deal to be done somewhere - but I don't think it of necessity quite works this way. What happens to ACL or the £6.5m that the Higgs put in?

I think there's going to have to be a transfer of cash or equity (or something of value) somewhere, from SISU, for this to stack up for all of the parties.

To my mind that roadmap was on the right lines, but poorly negotiated and hopeful in the extreme regarding the amount that the mortgage could be bought for. I'd revisit it though as a starting point, whilst moving the club back on a low-rent deal and making some extra cash there. But first we'll need to ride out the last thrashings of the JR, I fear...

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 23, 2014

letsallsingtogether said:
And do you believe that our current owners would get its priorities right for the football club?

Not particularly, but that's why I'd be in favour of a peppercorn rental deal such as detailed above.

Sure, it gives them an increased asset on their books, sure it probably raises the value of nothing to something... but they can't destroy the ground as a result, it'll still be there when they've gone... much as if ACL go bust now the council still own the ground, it'd be the same in the future if the club went pop.

It seems the best compromise to give everybody something they might want, if not everything... to my eyes at least.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 23, 2014

duffer said:
This is one of those simple solutions to a complex problem again, right?

I think there is a deal to be done somewhere - but I don't think it of necessity quite works this way. What happens to ACL or the £6.5m that the Higgs put in?

I think there's going to have to be a transfer of cash or equity (or something of value) somewhere, from SISU, for this to stack up for all of the parties.

To my mind that roadmap was on the right lines, but poorly negotiated and hopeful in the extreme regarding the amount that the mortgage could be bought for. I'd revisit it though as a starting point, whilst moving the club back on a low-rent deal and making some extra cash there. But first we'll need to ride out the last thrashings of the JR, I fear...

Of course it's simple, but I have a simple mind

The issue re: Higgs is where they're compensated with other opportunities

Whether politically you could make that a goer is another matter...

Oh, and one thing about the mortgage... undeniably low. If we're talking about people doing what they're good at however, one of the few things I would have confidence that SISU/Seppala could do is negotiate a better rate than CCC - not because CCC have done anything wrong, but more because that is at least where SISU/Seppala's expertise lies!

Much as I wouldn't have much faith in Joy to do a better job collecting my bins every other week... bad example, but you get my drift

shmmeee · Jun 23, 2014

Sick Boy said:
You don't necessarily need to own it, but a peppercorn rent and access to revenue is a must.

Fuck me, I agree with Sick Boy. Off for a lie down.

sky blue john · Jun 23, 2014

Currently Arvo hold claim to any existing or future property of CCFC !!
Maybe this is a clue why lease is no good to Sisu ?
And maybe proves that getting their hands on the stadium takes priority over the football club !!!!

shmmeee · Jun 23, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Yup. 125 year lease, peppercorn rent, solely for stadium, let the council do whatever it feels like with the land development elsewhere, compensate Higgs by offering various opportunities within the city for them to take on charitable projects more suited to what *they* are... and club can focus on being a club.

Everyone's a winner.

The only issue I can see with this is the political issue with it being Sisu who gain to be honest. I fear both sides are too far dug in at the moment. Another example of where a white knight would be useful here.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 23, 2014

shmmeee said:
The only issue I can see with this is the political issue with it being Sisu who gain to be honest. I fear both sides are too far dug in at the moment. Another example of where a white knight would be useful here.

I'm kind of ending up posting what I put 'elsewhere' piecemeal on this site as well

Of course a new owner would be ideal. I don't want SISU here. Never have done... never will - the whole concept of someone owning a football club to make money out of it is anathema to me. However... you have to pick your battles. In terms of acknowledging SISU own the club, maybe we have to accept they have won that particular one, and moving forward we have to work with them. Conceding territory, after all, doesn't have to mean losing the war. Pragmatism an' all that...

Thing is, I don't actually want my club to be distracted by land development and all that. That's a council's job to my mind, so let them have all that schizzle, let them do what they (well, at least are supposed to ) do well, let Higgs actually focus on charitable acts rather than a deranged football club... let the club focus on being a club. And you say SISU 'win' not sure that is a 'win' as such, more an elegant draw...

shmmeee · Jun 23, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
I'm kind of ending up posting what I put 'elsewhere' piecemeal on this site as well

Of course a new owner would be ideal. I don't want SISU here. Never have done... never will - the whole concept of someone owning a football club to make money out of it is anathema to me. However... you have to pick your battles. In terms of acknowledging SISU own the club, maybe we have to accept they have won that particular one, and moving forward we have to work with them. Conceding territory, after all, doesn't have to mean losing the war. Pragmatism an' all that...

Thing is, I don't actually want my club to be distracted by land development and all that. That's a council's job to my mind, so let them have all that schizzle, let them do what they (well, at least are supposed to ) do well, let Higgs actually focus on charitable acts rather than a deranged football club... let the club focus on being a club. And you say SISU 'win' not sure that is a 'win' as such, more an elegant draw...

Hey, I'd be happy with it. I've always wanted low rent and access to revenues. I'd actually praise Joy a bit for climbing down from ownership only. Do you think the mood generally is the same? Certainly the shouty Facebook lot make their views clear. I dunno, maybe a new season will sharpen some minds.

And of course, we have the issue that Sisu have stated they won't come back as tenants.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 23, 2014

shmmeee said:
Hey, I'd be happy with it. I've always wanted low rent and access to revenues. I'd actually praise Joy a bit for climbing down from ownership only. Do you think the mood generally is the same? Certainly the shouty Facebook lot make their views clear. I dunno, maybe a new season will sharpen some minds.

And of course, we have the issue that Sisu have stated they won't come back as tenants.

But then Labovitch has mentioned on at least one occasion he'd be happy with a long lease. I know it's not exactly worthwhile taking anything as gospel... but it's as much gospel as anything about freehold only, so I'd take that as a positive to work with, rather than pointing fingers and saying 'ha! that's a climbdown!'

As for mood generally, bit hard to tell really innit The more 'passionate' tend to be the ones that make their voices heard I'd *still* say the silent majority tend not to care full-stop and just want to be able to turn up to watch their team in the right place (back to the Herbert example, it's smaller scale but I doubt many care about whether it's a Trust or 100% council run, they just care about the dinosaurs being good or not) and maybe, maybe score a goal or two, win a game or two. 30,000 against Crewe didn't care about the politics after all.

Part of the reason I bore people on here is people glaze over IRL!

Leamington Pete · Jun 23, 2014

Of course a club needs to own its stadium... ...if the owners have lost millions of pounds invested and need something of value to sell.

Do you need to own your own stadium to be successful? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Jack Griffin

Guest

Super Moderator

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency