chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying but ACL paid for them as part of the lease didn't they, just that we then sold our half on to Higgs.
They didn't buy them... only only purchase was Higgs obtaining the 50% share of ACL sold by CCFC.
Wouldn't really solve much though would it? And in essence is no different to the proposed cross invoicing.
Either way, great, our turnover is boosted by £1m, that's £600k more we can spend on wages or transfers, but as you would be paying the £1m back to ACL you've basically got to borrow another £600k to cover those wages/transfers so more losses debt to the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
But I thought rent (expenditure) wasn't the issue, only low turnover?
You must have missed the memo which said we're making £m's losses every year. Easily done I suppose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
You must have missed the memo which said we're making £m's losses every year. Easily done I suppose.
That was always Mutton's point when he was leader of the council wasn't it. Although he never seemed to phrase it well and always made it sound confrontational.
Unless I've misunderstood FFP it is based off revenues not profit so for Fisher and Sepalla to say in their open letter that 60p in every £1 from F&B will be allocated to the team is nonsense. Lets say all the F&B goes to SISU, for every £1 they will have to pay expenses, unless the suggestion is ACL and Compass operate at a loss for the clubs benefit. So out of that remaining 40p in the £ SISU need to cover equipment costs, staff, buy the products in etc.
I know people think there's a huge markup on these types of operation but judging from my experience when I ran a club it London that's far from true. For every £1 coming in around a third went to us, out of that we had to pay rent staff etc. So where is the money to make up the shortfall coming from, will SISU put it in as equity or are they planning to run up the debt? It's a great soundbite for them, essentially if ACL don't give us this the team suffers, but as with many things that come out of SISU it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
So whats the priority then, Turnover or profit? Because when we get statements such as "Rent isn't the problem" that suggests that profit isn't the issue.
Its contradictions like this to lead people like me to come to the conclusion that Sisu will just keep moving the goalposts whenever a solution to the problem is found.
To be fair dave, some very brief research on the tinternet suggests that pubs and restaurants etc make a c50-65% profit on what they sell, this makes a mockery of ACL/compass 10-12%. If we were able to run our own F&B's we would be making a greater profit margain and more money to meet that 60p in a £1. I'm sure TF said at one of the forums that charlton made c55-60% profit on F&B's.
To be fair dave, some very brief research on the tinternet suggests that pubs and restaurants etc make a c50-65% profit on what they sell, this makes a mockery of ACL/compass 10-12%. If we were able to run our own F&B's we would be making a greater profit margain and more money to meet that 60p in a £1. I'm sure TF said at one of the forums that charlton made c55-60% profit on F&B's.
I
http://mobile.morningadvertiser.co....y-Wet-led-pubs-GP-falls-below-50#.U8FumYm9LCQ
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090911083037AAz7s2E
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The original rent level was a problem, we all acknowledge it was at too high.
The more recent Rent offers were obviously seen as acceptable levels of expenditures. they know it is right and proper to pay rent, they don't get to use the stadium for free. That will be built in to their costings.
They need Access to matchday revenue to both boost their turnover and also to bring profit in that can be redirected in to the clubs running costs. I don't see what is confusing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
You're looking at gross profit not net profit. For FFP (and other accounting and cash-flow reasons) you want to look at total income but for the bottom line you need to look at net profit.
To give you an example at my place out gross profit was just short of 70% but net profit was only just over 30%.
So why, in principle can a low rent not be negeotiated that incorporates cross invoicing for F & B's?
For example, lets say F & B income was £100k a year, why cannot sisu put forward a proposal where they keep the income of this but pay say £50k extra in rent/matchday costs a year?
That would be fair negotiation would it not? Meeting halfway.
So why, in principle can a low rent not be negeotiated that incorporates cross invoicing for F & B's?
For example, lets say F & B income was £100k a year, why cannot sisu put forward a proposal where they keep the income of this but pay say £50k extra in rent/matchday costs a year?
That would be fair negotiation would it not? Meeting halfway.
Fair enough, I'm not an accountant. But clubs make a lot more than ACL's 10-12%.
Has that figure actually been shown in ACLs accounts or was it something that Fisher just threw out as one of his facts? I would be amazed if the club could run F&B at a higher net profit than a company like compass. Its why so many venues make deals with companies like that, they may lose a % of the profit but a lower % of a higher profit is better for the bottom line.
So why, in principle can a low rent not be negeotiated that incorporates cross invoicing for F & B's?
For example, lets say F & B income was £100k a year, why cannot sisu put forward a proposal where they keep the income of this but pay say £50k extra in rent/matchday costs a year
It's what ACL told the Sky Blue Trust in the Q and A.
Which still leaves the question of how would SISU run the F&B as a more efficient operation than a company that specialises in that area?
Just had a look at the Q&A and that shows a net profit of £119,903. Can anyone really look at the amount lost in ticket sales advertising, sponsorship etc and claim the F&B is really the sticking point here?
Fair enough, I'm not an accountant. But clubs make a lot more than ACL's 10-12%.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I think you will find that the 60% profit is before overhead and staffing expenses?
At a fans forum, fisher said ACL's 10% nett profit was rubbish and he expected 20%
To be honest, I was coming from it purely from a medium to long term stance rather than a 2 year deal then off to the new stadium.
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?