Strange that I received a text message about this with almost identical wording from Mr Labovitch around the same time as this post...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outside of all this particular nonsense, that's hardly surprising either really.
It's why the whole setup's stupid, two businesses obliged to try and be as efficient as possible and do as well as possible... but the only way they can do that is by costing the other one some of their own potential savings/profit.
Doomed to fail really, isn't it. Something to be said that if it's not resolved properly now, it just comes bak to haunt in a few years time one way or another.
Maybe, but potentially (if the bail out is found illegal state aid) ACL could be forced to repay the money and look for a new (private sector) lender.
That may be very difficult without the main tenant - ACL could potentially go bust.
Yeah, the clubs turnover really is £24-25m..........
.....those figures are a load of tosh. Turnover was £10.8m 2012/13, £6.6m last year.
We also learned that ACL was only sustainable if CCFC kept paying huge rent which was unsustainable for the club.
I'm not convinced it was doomed to fail - isn't this the nature of every commercial landlord/tenant relationship. One side wants to pay as little as possible, the other side wants to charge as much as possible. Neither side, typically, wants to break the other though.
As an aside, this 'sustainable' thing is an odd argument to me. If you can afford to pay millions in salaries, you can't really claim that the rent makes your business unsustainable.
ACL though, did have an unavoidable fixed cost, the mortgage to YB. Even SISU could see that a large part of the driver for the high rent was the mortgage, hence the roadmap which talked about buying it out. One of the many ironies in all this is that refinancing that mortgage with the council allowed (or so it was claimed) ACL to lower the rent.
Anyway, in truth this has been done before too. The more I look at this the more I think we just need to move on past it all, and hope that after the dust settles the serious talks start.
Yes. It was only supposed to temporary until CCFC used their option to buy the Higgs share. Higgs has to go and then CCFC and CCC will be together as ACL. This is the main problem caused by SISU not purchasing the Higgs share. City would still be at the Ricoh if they had of. SISU would be in a position to negotiate the purchase of the CCC Share - assuming they were working well with the council at ACL in this scenario.
One thing over the many years of this saga that has just struck me, did CCFC have the option to buy the Higgs share?
Sure that Robinson was given that option for funds put into the club? May have thrown it in with the sale to Sisu, but sure that the option was his alone at one stage?
I'm sorry, that's melodramatic nonsense. Yes, it was too high. Yes, compared to other clubs it was too high. Yes, as a percentage of turnover it was too high.
But crazed contracts to players who didn't perform; Bell, Eastwood, Wood and McSheffrey, all gifted under SISU's tenure were just as significant an issue. Combine their wages, and there's your rent covered.
I seem to remember something about this just before sisu took over. I thought when Elliot was chairman the board forced GR to hand it back to the club.
One thing over the many years of this saga that has just struck me, did CCFC have the option to buy the Higgs share?
Sure that Robinson was given that option for funds put into the club? May have thrown it in with the sale to Sisu, but sure that the option was his alone at one stage?
i don't think that Robinson could be "forced" to do anything that he didn't want to do to be honest.
One thing over the many years of this saga that has just struck me, did CCFC have the option to buy the Higgs share?
Sure that Robinson was given that option for funds put into the club? May have thrown it in with the sale to Sisu, but sure that the option was his alone at one stage?
Hi Lord, Count here.I think it's pretty well established that there was always the option for CCFC Ltd to buy the Higgs share at a formula price. For whatever reason, SISU chose not to exercise the option...
(Please don't make me google it though, I'm knackered. For once, just trust me on this.)
Ok so the bit about ACL being unsustainable without the club is true, but the bit you disagree with is tosh.
Talk about people believing what they want to believe.
We also learned that ACL was only sustainable if CCFC kept paying huge rent which was unsustainable for the club.
I'm sorry, that's melodramatic nonsense. Yes, it was too high. Yes, compared to other clubs it was too high. Yes, as a percentage of turnover it was too high.
But crazed contracts to players who didn't perform; Bell, Eastwood, Wood and McSheffrey, all gifted under SISU's tenure were just as significant an issue. Combine their wages, and there's your rent covered.
As an aside, this 'sustainable' thing is an odd argument to me. If you can afford to pay millions in salaries, you can't really claim that the rent makes your business unsustainable.
Anyway, in truth this has been done before too. The more I look at this the more I think we just need to move on past it all, and hope that after the dust settles the serious talks start.
Don't disagree, though don't expect people to stop demanding that we spend money we don't have, though one outcome of all this concentration on finances may well be that people will have more realistic expectations in the future.
i'm more concerned about the even more unsustainable rent that sisu are choosing to pay at suxfields. if you feel the need to complain about rent, historic or otherwise its the current arrangement that's doing the most damage to the club. You'd be better off concentrating on that.
So you actually believe that the clubs turnover was in fact £24-25m not £10.8m in 2012/13? That goes against all of the figures OSB has put forward. Yes, talk about people believing what they want to believe....
I seem to remember something about this just before sisu took over. I thought when Elliot was chairman the board forced GR to hand it back to the club.
wasn't it the sisu QC who made the 5% comment? are you saying he's lying? which bits of there argument are you going to choose to believe?
The formula price was in the region of £8m.
If they had bought the Higgs shares then what would that have achieved people?
Was that ever established? I thought the formula price was actually around £6.5m. Regardless, it looks like Higgs were prepared to accept £5m, but not on SISU's delayed payments terms. It's a pity SISU didn't start negotiating about it from the off in 2007, imho, instead of gambling on promotion. Ho hum, bit late now either way.
It was part of the costs that were unsustainable. We can't afford to pay £1.3m, we can't afford to then pay another c£250k matchday costs, and we can't afford to then not get the benefit of the £1m per annual F&Bs.
That's notwithstanding the wages we spent on players. Paying high wages (not particularly high compared to our peers) doesn't not make the rent ok.
If they had bought the Higgs shares then what would that have achieved people?
If which player wages, the point I was making, isn't an insignificant issue. Certainly shouldn't be overlooked as it is by many who major on the headline topics
But crazed contracts to players who didn't perform; Bell, Eastwood, Wood and McSheffrey, all gifted under SISU's tenure were just as significant an issue. Combine their wages, and there's your rent covered.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you on the rent issue as its been covered off before. But somehow you think that the rent, matchday costs and the like should all be 'plusses'. They shouldn't be. What about financing costs in the capital to build, what about maintenance, what about depreciation? Again I also stated that the headline figure was too high; but don't let that run away with you. The real cost of playing in a £30m+ stadium is - all things considered - well in excess of £1m per annum. Probably closer to double that when you allow for compound interest over a sensible term. Football cannot expect to operate in a crazed bubble with expenditure exceeding turnover and think that's okay.
If which player wages, the point I was making, isn't an insignificant issue. Certainly shouldn't be overlooked as it is by many who major on the headline topics
Jesus, read the thing. We are not saying 'sell to Sisu'. We are saying 'negotiate with all possible ownership scenarios.' A lot of regular fans don't care about who owns what – they want their club back in the city.
Negotiating – no matter how icky and distasteful some anti-Sisu fundamentalists might find it – with the club's owners is a start down that road. The alternative is many, many more days in court and rattling around in Northampton.
My goal is getting the club back to the Ricoh.
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?