I think maybe Joy should read this (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

Team one is playing in front of 24,000 and team two 23,500

If you have owners who are prepared to spend any if that money saved on rent on the actual team then a team at the Ricoh playing in front of 24k would have the advantage of 1 million extra to spend on the team .

Big point though do we have owners who would spend it on the team?

 

---

[letsallsingtogether]

Team B.

As team A are paying their players wages in excess of 5 million and club B are paying 1 million in wages!! team A charges £2.00 / game and Team B are charging £26.00 / game, at the end of the day it is all relative.

Then again team B could have been playing rent free if they had played their cards right so their benefits would have been even higher...

Team one is playing in front of 24,000 and team two 23,500

 

[skybluetony176]

So if we had two teams;

Team one paid £1.3 million a year in rent and no other revenue
Team two paid £115,000 a year in rent and all other match revenue

Are you saying team one has an advantage as it can invest more in players?

How much is each team paying in management fees and wages?

Just so we can get the full picture.

 

[Grendel]

How much is each team paying in management fees and wages?

Just so we can get the full picture.

I'm talking 2005 - so Joe Elliot charged management fees - wow.

Oh as for the full picture the team with big rent gets an average of £10 revenue for each ticket sold.

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm talking 2005 - so Joe Elliot charged management fees - wow.

Oh as for the full picture the team with big rent gets an average of £10 revenue for each ticket sold.

No wonder people don't understand you when you only ever tell half the story.

 

[Grendel]

No wonder people don't understand you when you only ever tell half the story.

Oh I think everyone knows the story. Some just care far more about the clubs well being than others.

 

[dongonzalos]

I'm talking 2005 - so Joe Elliot charged management fees - wow.

Oh as for the full picture the team with big rent gets an average of £10 revenue for each ticket sold.

What does it get now?

 

[rightumpty]

We don't even have a pot to piss in.

Seems to me we are in a bigger financial mess with only an amber pot to look forward to.

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00005O40O/?tag=skblta-21

Football chairman have over the years traditionally been seen as flamboyant characters from the world of business, sailing close to the wind in their
relations with the fans and players of the clubs they run. There is often a sense that they have become football chairmen more by luck than judgement, more
by stealth than flair. Peter Ridsdale, the Leeds United chairman, is cast from a different mould altogether. A fan himself, from the first time he saw Leeds
United and John Charles as a seven year old, to the recent run that saw the club fall at the penultimate hurdle in the Champions League, Ridsdale has always
lived and breathed Leeds United. Never losing sight of what it is to be a football fan, Ridsdale has striven tirelessly to raise Leeds United's profile as
a force in world football, jointly delivering financial acumen and a fan's insight in all his dealings as the club chairman. He is approachable yet
focused, driven yet ready to debate and listen to others who understand and love the game of football. His stance over the ugly issues in the UEFA cup game in
Istanbul two seasons ago won him over to the Leed's supporters for life-even fans of rival clubs recognise and applaud his achievements, having developed an
exciting and successful club, a top squad and manager and a guaranteed future on football's European stage. This video follows Peter Ridsdale through a typically
busy week, addressing the club's move from Elland Road, reflecting on recent multi-million pound player deals, looking at memorable parts of the city he grew
up in and talking about his favourite subject - the supporters. This is Peter Ridsdale as frank as you would expect, taking you to the heart of his
chairmanship and his love of all things Leeds. From the night in 1965 he queued up round the block as a thirteen year old for a cup final ticket to his "Back me
or Sack me" appointment of David O'Leary that began the new era at the club, this is the story all Leeds fans will want to hear: Peter Ridsdale - My Leeds
United.

 

[wingy]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00005O40O/?tag=skblta-21
View attachment 3293

Is He Fit and Proper?
Does he still pass the Test?

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

His stance over the ugly issues in the UEFA cup game in Istanbul two seasons ago won him over to the Leed's supporters for life-even fans of rival clubs recognise and applaud his achievements

 

[Jim]

Oh I think everyone knows the story. Some just care far more about the clubs well being than others.

No, it's just that some fans are capable of looking at the entire picture with an objective viewpoint.......

 

[RoboCCFC90]

It's nice to see this type of statement from the owner of Notts Forest, but everyone was asking did he have a clue when he sacked Sean O'Driscoll last year so its quick how times have changed with respect to the fans views.

With respect to Grendel's question "Are you saying team one has an advantage as it can invest more in players?" based on £20 per ticket on your attendances and £5 per head for beverages at every game you would be looking £3,500,000+ profit margain for Team Two. Meaning Team Two would have more money to play with.

 

[wingy]

It's nice to see this type of statement from the owner of Notts Forest, but everyone was asking did he have a clue when he sacked Sean O'Driscoll last year so its quick how times have changed with respect to the fans views.

With respect to Grendel's question "Are you saying team one has an advantage as it can invest more in players?" based on £20 per ticket on your attendances and £5 per head for beverages at every game you would be looking £3,500,000+ profit margain for Team Two.

TBF I think that was His Brother Robo,this guy took over the chair around 6 months in IIRC.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

TBF I think that was His Brother Robo,this guy took over the chair around 6 months in IIRC.

Ah I see.. It's hard enough when you have to keep up with our own Clubs issues (of which there has been plenty) let alone other clubs

 

[James Smith]

I'm talking 2005 - so Joe Elliot charged management fees - wow.

Oh as for the full picture the team with big rent gets an average of £10 revenue for each ticket sold.

No I haven't seen anything to say Mr Elliott charged management fees or loaned the club money. However as I posted a while back Mr McGinnity charged interest on one of his loans to the club at 1% above base rate. Another loan was from the McGinnity family trust was being charged at 2% above base rate.

Craigavon which has something to do with Geoffrey Robinson made a secured loan to the club with 1% above bank base rate.

Sir Higgs, Mr McGinnity and Geoffrey Robinson collectively loaned the club £2m (£666,666 each I guess) unsecured and charged no interest. Which would tie in with the report in the telegraph about Geoffrey R losing £20m, Mike McG losing £1.3m and Sir H losing £600k
Http://www.Coventrytelegraph.net/news/Coventry-news/geoffrey-robinson-20m-out-of-pocket-3103929

So Sir Higgs was the only one who got no interest although he also had loaned the lowest amount- but wasn't he along with Geoffrey the biggest shareholders and would have also lost the money he paid for them.

 

[lordsummerisle]

So Sir Higgs was the only one who got no interest although he also had loaned the lowest amount- but wasn't he along with Geoffrey the biggest shareholders and would have also lost the money he paid for them.

Luckily he was able to possibly reduce his losses with a £6million payment for the catering rights to the Stadium from a local charity.

 

[wingy]

Luckily he was able to possibly reduce his losses with a £6million payment for the catering rights to the Stadium from a local charity.

I'm almost certain one of our old board members from back In the day had a Stake in compass.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I'm almost certain one of our old board members from back In the day had a Stake in compass.

The only compass that any board members over the years seemed to have lacked is a moral one!

 

[James Smith]

Luckily he was able to possibly reduce his losses with ........

You might want to review what you posted there as suggesting theft from a charity is actionable as it would imply that the charity had falsified accounts and embezzled money from ACL. Don't know if the charity would take action but I wouldn't want to risk it personally. The person concerned is dead however and as such cannot sue for libel.

 

[lordsummerisle]

You might want to review what you posted there as suggesting theft from a charity is actionable as it would imply that the charity had falsified accounts and embezzled money from ACL. Don't know if the charity would take action but I wouldn't want to risk it personally. The person concerned is dead however and as such cannot sue for libel.

What the fuck?

No money from the charity to ACL or otherwise even implied.

Merely concerning what we were discusssing the other week about somebody being on the board at CCFC, also being on the board of Higgs when the agreement was reached for the transfer of the clubs interest in ACL to Higgs for around £6million.

You found it peculiar as well from a corporate governance standpoint as well from what I remember.

 

[skybluefred]

You mean like forest have had for the last 10 years?

We are not interested in Forest or any other team than Coventry City. If they all lost 10million a month
who cares.The only money COV are losing is totally sisu's fault through their own stubborn stupidity.

 

[James Smith]

What the fuck?

No money from the charity to ACL or otherwise even implied.

Merely concerning what we were discusssing the other week about somebody being on the board at CCFC, also being on the board of Higgs when the agreement was reached for the transfer of the clubs interest in ACL to Higgs for around £6million.

You found it peculiar as well from a corporate governance standpoint as well from what I remember.

I think what I said was that Sir Higgs had excused himself from one set of board meetings (Higgs or CCFC don't know which) when decisions about the arena were being taken. Someone on I think the Coventry Telegraph website comments section had gone a little overboard in saying he should just decide whether he was for or against the football club or words to that effect and resign from one or the other or both.

I posted

No I haven't seen anything to say Mr Elliott charged management fees or loaned the club money. However as I posted a while back Mr McGinnity charged interest on one of his loans to the club at 1% above base rate. Another loan was from the McGinnity family trust was being charged at 2% above base rate.

Craigavon which has something to do with Geoffrey Robinson made a secured loan to the club with 1% above bank base rate.

Sir Higgs, Mr McGinnity and Geoffrey Robinson collectively loaned the club £2m (£666,666 each I guess) unsecured and charged no interest. Which would tie in with the report in the telegraph about Geoffrey R losing £20m, Mike McG losing £1.3m and Sir H losing £600k
Http://www.Coventrytelegraph.net/new...pocket-3103929

So Sir Higgs was the only one who got no interest although he also had loaned the lowest amount- but wasn't he along with Geoffrey the biggest shareholders and would have also lost the money he paid for them.

Responding to that you wrote

Luckily he was able to possibly reduce his losses with a £6million payment for the catering rights to the Stadium from a local charity.

and that to me implies to me as my personal opinion (and I may be the only one who views it in that way), that Sir Higgs was able to reduce his personal losses from what he put into our football club by taking all of the £6m cash [payment for the catering rights] from a local charity of which he was a trustee. That implies that he was in a position to take all the money from a charity payment, to a club that he had a personal interest in as a trustee in the former and a director in the latter. Therefore to suggest that his losses could be mitigated by all the money from a deal implies to me that there was the potential for dishonesty on his part as not all of the money invested was his to begin with, there were two other directors involved (and I am not suggesting any impropriety in any case). You're right I did slightly misread some of what you were posting (I was reading it quickly in the stock room on my phone) and there is no suggestion that the charity actually falsified accounts and and I apologise for that. However the charity didn't pay £6m for the catering rights at the arena - that's what confused me - they paid the £6m with writing off loans etc. as well as a cash payment, for our stake in ACL (which includes the catering rights) but which is a different thing. I read it as a separate transaction from the payment used to buy our stake in ACL and would have implied there was £6m unaccounted for. Apologies again for any confusion. As is documented in the club accounts, the charity paid for the clubs interest in the arena/ACL and that the £2m of money received by the directors was re-loaned to the club unsecured and interest free by Sir Higgs, MMcG & GR.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I think what I said was that Sir Higgs had excused himself from one set of board meetings (Higgs or CCFC don't know which) when decisions about the arena were being taken. Someone on I think the Coventry Telegraph website comments section had gone a little overboard in saying he should just decide whether he was for or against the football club or words to that effect and resign from one or the other or both.

I posted
Responding to that you wrote
and that to me implies to me as my personal opinion (and I may be the only one who views it in that way), that Sir Higgs was able to reduce his personal losses from what he put into our football club by taking all of the £6m cash [payment for the catering rights] from a local charity of which he was a trustee. That implies that he was in a position to take all the money from a charity payment, to a club that he had a personal interest in as a trustee in the former and a director in the latter. Therefore to suggest that his losses could be mitigated by all the money from a deal implies to me that there was the potential for dishonesty on his part as not all of the money invested was his to begin with, there were two other directors involved (and I am not suggesting any impropriety in any case). You're right I did slightly misread some of what you were posting (I was reading it quickly in the stock room on my phone) and there is no suggestion that the charity actually falsified accounts and and I apologise for that. However the charity didn't pay £6m for the catering rights at the arena - that's what confused me - they paid the £6m with writing off loans etc. as well as a cash payment, for our stake in ACL (which includes the catering rights) but which is a different thing. I read it as a separate transaction from the payment used to buy our stake in ACL and would have implied there was £6m unaccounted for. Apologies again for any confusion. As is documented in the club accounts, the charity paid for the clubs interest in the arena/ACL and that the £2m of money received by the directors was re-loaned to the club unsecured and interest free by Sir Higgs, MMcG & GR.

It's the whole "excusing" yourself a meeting as if you can have nothing to do with it that is strange really.

Just don't think that a charity should be propping up a professional football club, which is, in effect, what it was doing.

What would the club have done if not been able to sell it's half of ACL(sorry for confusion from me there earlier) to Higgs?

All a bit cosy for me really.

 

[James Smith]

Erm probably hoped the Co-Op (now there's another basket case) didn't call in our money - was it a loan or overdraft? - and were prepared to keep bankrolling the club. Maybe GR would have extended his guarantee to more than just £8m and the bank would have "ponied up the dough" as Mr Burns once said. I can imagine now that the Higgs wish they'd never bothered and as we might never have heard of SISU as a result, going bust back then might have been a much much better option - isn't 20/20 hindsight wonderful .
I think the charity could (and I am speaking only for myself) argue that they were just buying the clubs stake in ACL and the fact that there was a formula to allow the club to buy it back for a reasonable price(?) was irrelevant.

From talking to someone at Christmas who works in the city it's fairly commonplace to leave a meeting when a decision is going to be taken that you have a vested interest in the outcome. Apple require it if you

If you hold an elected or appointed public office while employed at Apple, advise Government Affairs. Excuse yourself from involvement in any decisions that might create or appear to create a conflict of interest.

http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...b691-13a29ac90501/business_conduct_policy.pdf Page 14 - Community Activities and Public Positions

 

[lordsummerisle]

Erm probably hoped the Co-Op (now there's another basket case) didn't call in our money - was it a loan or overdraft? - and were prepared to keep bankrolling the club. Maybe GR would have extended his guarantee to more than just £8m and the bank would have "ponied up the dough" as Mr Burns once said. I can imagine now that the Higgs wish they'd never bothered and as we might never have heard of SISU as a result, going bust back then might have been a much much better option - isn't 20/20 hindsight wonderful .
I think the charity could (and I am speaking only for myself) argue that they were just buying the clubs stake in ACL and the fact that there was a formula to allow the club to buy it back for a reasonable price(?) was irrelevant.

From talking to someone at Christmas who works in the city it's fairly commonplace to leave a meeting when a decision is going to be taken that you have a vested interest in the outcome. Apple require it if you


http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...b691-13a29ac90501/business_conduct_policy.pdf Page 14 - Community Activities and Public Positions

But excusing yourself from meetings is really just a piss poor get out clause really.

Especially as the money from one, went to pay off a loan to another, even if then loaned straight back.

As 2 million of the money was used by 2 directors to pay off their loans, and then loaned straight back to the club, did the club really need so desperately to sell the half of ACL to Higgs?

All a bit peculiar really.

 

[James Smith]

But excusing yourself from meetings is really just a piss poor get out clause really.

Especially as the money from one, went to pay off a loan to another, even if then loaned straight back.

As 2 million of the money was used by 2 directors to pay off their loans, and then loaned straight back to the club, did the club really need so desperately to sell the half of ACL to Higgs?

All a bit peculiar really.

It's standard business practice though, so piss poor or not it happens a lot. Can't comment on the rest of that really as I don't know all the facts - now there's a surprise with our club. However the Higgs did build the sports centre in Allard Way that has the academy facilities that got us Cat 2 status. As that's proving to be essential given there appears to be little money floating around for big name signings at the moment, I won't complain about that.