I think things are at a turning point for ACL. It is quite clear they want CCFC to play at the Ricoh - plenty of evidence to support it, statements, offers to administrator, the appointment of the groundsman, the costs of renovating the pitch etc. My query would be is that want really an absolute need and as yet I am not convinced it is.
SISU rely on the fact that ACL need 23 to 26 days of income from a football club. That creates approx 250K in footfall for the arena and its tenants in a year. I was told that in the last 9 weeks footfall has been over 100K. Why do I mention footfall well that is what all the occupants of the arena are looking for. Footfall equates directly to income
Other tenants especially the casino are struggling because the club is not there? really? The Casino has based their business plan on 23 days of football attendance have they ? I also think people forget the present casino owners stepped in for the previous owners and got a good deal that makes their operation very viable.
Compass must be upset because they are not getting the return they paid for? I think people entirely misunderstand the set up. Compass have a contract with IEC but also own part of IEC. The biggest cost for Compass & IEC is the staff, which is based on an agency situation ie they pay most staff only when they need them so can adjust to meet need. Then factor in that CCFC now equates to less than 10% of the turnover at the Ricoh and that margins are far greater on exhibition, conference or concerts than it is on football income.
Football is the thing that makes ACL profitable? really ?
I think that people assume there has to be a league club based there - but does there have to be? Seems to me that by one way or another the Ricoh has to increase footfall over a year by 5000 people per week to cover the effect of losing the football club. In fact if margins are better on other income then the footfall does not need to be that big to cover the "profit" lost.
Just because TF shouts that ACL are a poor business that it is about to fail etc does not make it so. He has said a whole lot of other things that have out not to be not quite the way it is hasnt he ? Why would he want that image to stick, who else would hear it - potential ACL clients perhaps who would be interested in say one off bookings of the stadium?
SISU need ACL to be keeping the stadium available for use by CCFC because it stops them selling the space for other uses. (it doesnt stop them putting on other events in the Jaguar etc though even on match days - I think the Davis Cup proved something about putting events on at same time as a CCFC match for example). ACL have to keep the stadium available for CCFC to use have not taken bookings of the arena for match days, at some point that changes - it has to. When that change happens then what way back is there for CCFC, especially if they have committed to a groundshare at another ground (to try weaken and distress ACL which to my mind is the only reason that makes sense for doing the groundshare)
I think we should all keep an open mind on all this. Maybe think outside the box a little TF might be right in his assessment of ACL but from what I see I do not see that as a given at all. If the Ricoh cuts itself loose from reliance on football (a stated aim in its last set of accounts) then that could well open up other opportunities that means the boot is not on the SISU foot at all.
The emotional tie is to keep CCFC at the Ricoh....... that does not necessarily mean it is the commercial decision.
I am sure some will disagree with the above as is their right but i do not think things are as clear cut as many think and i am certainly not prepared to rely on the utterances of the likes of TF as evidence that ACL is a bad business and nailed on to fail without ccfc. It could just as likely be that the comments by the ACL directors are spot on and the Ricoh can survive without CCFC. There are other options for ACL and those options if achieved prove the high risk gamble the owners are taking with OUR club
