Fisher and the myth of matchday revenues (3 Viewers)

...but they are expected to pay £1 million a season to benefit from these revenues.

Pual Fletcher on CWR putting his penerth in was asked what sort of figures he thought the streams would generate for the club,he could'nt say but

remarked something like £0.5M. was achievable at HR but I think that was turnover not profit,pretty sure also it was Compass then back in the

day.

Ignoring the fact that most of us hate sisu (including me), I would have to agree with them that the rental contract is a mess and has been ever since it was signed. But this does leave the question of why it's only now that they're making such a fuss about it.

think we might have another expert from Warwick Uni on CWR after 8.00 but don't quote me.

Good Morning All
Correct me if I'm wrong, But on your list Wren Street, you Have Car Parking Fees, I don't think the Football club gets this money.

think the situation is that they didnt used to get that income Tank Top. Situation has changed I think so that the club buy in usage and then sell it on at a profit. Could be wrong

I also think the way income streams were allocated has changed from the original set up, again I stand to be corrected. Various income streams like pitch side advertising and car parking were perhaps not available to the club before. I think what possibly now happens is that ACL source income then sell it on to CCFC so the club makes a margin on it. So looks to me like more smoke and mirrors from TF etc. I don't think things are the same as when Fletcher left

That would lead me to comment on the fact that if such deals have been done that ACL have been bending over backwards to try help the club by providing income and profits they could have kept for themselves, working a deal to help both. But strangely you don't hear much about that do you ?

Similarly this arguement about the rent. Call it £1.2m what income does the club generate in terms of gate income?. Say average crowd is 10500 and average cost is say £15 per person with 26 home games (including cups) thats £4,095,000 ticket income. Add to that the other income sources then if the club aimed at break even it would still have a better than average player budget, a bit of clever player dealing and that budget improves. Change the structure of the rent as ACL have offered to talk about to say £600k and budget improves further and still the club remains viable and at breakeven. The players budget based on ticket sales (all of which goes to the club) is £2.66m, ours is set at £4.2m and we have a huge squad that could and should be trimmed. Is there such a big difference by taking an inclusive non aggressive partnership stance ? The club is budgetting for a £3m loss 2012/13 per TF at fans forum - you have to ask why?

Just proves the reality is that all the recent shennanigans has nothing really to do with rent and income streams......... has everything to do with SISU's exit strategy which is entirely based on getting hold of stadium at very little cost and selling on at a big profit

Quote OSB
Just proves that the reality is that all the recent shennanigans has nothing really to do with rent and income streams......... has everything to do with SISU's exit strategy which is entirely based on getting hold of stadium at very little cost and selling on at a big profit

I have been saying this for 12months or more, yet what I find incredulous is that some on here still believe otherwise.

It is interesting to read the various comments flying around. CCFC are adopting an aggressive PR policy which kept it ahead in that sense to begin with over recent months and the start of this week. ACL were painted as the villains and amateurs in this matter, the source of CCFC woes.

I think however as the week has gone on and more level headed comments have been made together with more facts made available then TF SISU and CCFC have lost some (more) credibility amongst a big section of the fans. The only person coming out with much credit on the CCFC side of things is MR in my opinion. ACL have kept a dignified professional silence, the picture painted of them by others as the villains hasnt seemed to have stuck, many fans are simply fed up with it all and can see through the hedge fund game now. I think that TF's PR campaign has to some degree backfired.

We all want our club to be successful, to be vibrant and viable. The really important thing is what happens on the pitch. Recent success has been found by using a small core of players and with the current sources of income, which should tell us something perhaps ? Does CCFC and in particular TF/SW come out in a positive light at the end of this week ? We want it all sorted out and if you asked most fans I reckon they want SISU/TF gone, the fans want CCFC with the stadium but not SISU with the stadium.

Personally i think the fans connection to the club is as low as it has ever been......... conversely the connection to MR's team is growing - there is a difference

It did seem a shift emerged in his comments between Tuesday and Wednesday,that being knifing ACL on Tuesday but by Yesterday it was All the Yorkshire bank.

Wrenstreetcarpark said:

Extra Match day sales of £62,500 a year wouldn't even pay Fisher's wages.

It would pay fatty Clarke's salary,just. But not for his pies and booze.

Click to expand...

Just to speculate a little .......... i wonder what the various directors and others are on ........ Ray Ranson was on the best part of £300k, what would we guess at messers Fisher, Waggott, Clarke & Labovitch are on ....... £500k split between them ?

btw those wages do not get included in the FFP calculation

oldskyblue58 said:

Just to speculate a little .......... i wonder what the various directors and others are on ........ Ray Ranson was on the best part of £300k, what would we guess at messers Fisher, Waggott, Clarke & Labovitch are on ....... £500k split between them ?

btw those wages do not get included in the FFP calculation

Click to expand...

Sound's about right to me - doubt it's any less

I didn't realise that the club would be profiting from the Springsteen, Florence and the Machine, Muse concerts and the festive parties. Or the money gained from the Hotel and Casino, or the payments from Compass for the license to supply food stuffs at all of these events.

Even I can see the gaping holes in your argument Wren. Can both sides please stop playing us fans off for mugs. There is far more money to be made than a bit of profit on a manky burger and we all know it.

In all truth I don't see the problem with SISU wanting to buy the stadium (Part/all) and selling it on to responsible owners? Why shouldn't they want to make a profit on their investment?

if the object of the exercise is to sell it on at a huge profit I would suggest that ACL do that themselves and that way the money comes back to the people of coventry rather than faceless investors.

I think what most people object to is SISU forcing the price down artificially and then taking the asset to reward their investors by selling it on big. Nowhere in that do the club or the city benefit

What is Fisher trying to achieve?

Is Fisher just trying to bankrupt ACL; so he can buy the club for a song?

Should ACL sue him for publicising confidential information?

DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe said:

Is Fisher just trying to bankrupt ACL; so he can buy the club for a song?

Should ACL sue him for publicising confidential information?

Click to expand...

It wasn't confidential it was mis information

Do you believe Joy Seppala?

When trying to work out the truth behind who said what and when we need to look at the integrity of some of those concerned.

I think we, at least most of us, think that SISU and the board have on occasions, lets be polite and say, not been forthcoming with the true situation in regards to their finacial dealings etc.

Well some individuals seem to have form in this regard - especialy in respect of who said what, to who, and when during negotiations - Ring a bell? Rent negotiations anyone?

Joy Seppella was Criticised by a High Court Judge in 2005 - here is what he said

Ms Seppala was the least satisfactory of all the witnesses. In making my general comments above, I said that no-one was deliberately lying. But I fear Ms Seppala has a distorted recollection of some events – particularly about what happened at the meetings in New York in January 2005 – and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a "spin" (I am sorry not to be able to find a better word) which suits the Applicants' case. She is also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her the benefit of the doubt on that – for instance her suggestion (eventually withdrawn by her) that Mr Wallace had "continually" represented to the Applicants that the RCF Banks had a strong direct claim against TXU Corp when in fact he never said that at all. She also recollects (and she may well have believed what she was saying) events which did not, as I conclude, take place (namely a conversation with Mr Wallace "in a small room" and Mr Olin reading and explaining a position paper in New York on 11 January 2005). She is, I am quite sure, an astute and effective business woman. I totally reject her description of herself as naïve. I am quite sure that she was closely involved in developments as the representative of SISU as a Committee Creditor. But she had many other business matters on her mind and when it came to producing her witness statement and giving her oral evidence, her recollection was not, I think, as accurate as she would like to make out.

Click to expand...

Here is the link - paragraph 138 makes the interesting reading. Oh and by the way SISU lost this case. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/2170.html&query=%22sisu+capital%22&method=boolean