Midlands Today Last Night (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
ashbyjan

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
If you'd bothered to read the CT article prior to posting you would see its in quotes as its a direct quote from the CT article. Or are the CT now ACL's spindoctors?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
ashbyjan said:
If you'd bothered to read the CT article prior to posting you would see its in quotes as its a direct quote from the CT article. Or are the CT now ACL's spindoctors?
Click to expand...

This should of course mean the club really should now get a very low rent as there is no dependency why the need to profiteer from the community asset in the community stadium?
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
ashbyjan said:
As I read the article in the CT the council officers statement was given to Councillors before the vote on the financial restructuring so before the lower loan payments CCFC rent was critical now the lower payments are "alleviating ACL’s dependency on rent from Sky Blues"

So in summary before restructuring CCFC rent was critical now it isn't.
Click to expand...

Not a direct quote from the report but rather the Coventry Telegraph's interpretation of it then?

As OSB said when referring to the same article:

" Can you trust a CT report not to have an angle?. Can you trust the CT not to edit a quote to sensationalise a story ? "

However we can all pick and choose which parts conform to our prejudices, or look at it overall with what is actually factually accurate(as far as we know) in the story.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Nice idea. Unfortunately there would have to be a full council meeting every time we wanted to make a substitution. You would also find that our goalkeeper would be made redundant half way through the match - at the same time as appointing three other managers.

dongonzalos said:
It's a shame the council are not allowed to run CCFC.
Click to expand...
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
It's a shame the council are not allowed to run CCFC.
Click to expand...

They can't even keep our roads running. Last season would have looked like over expenditure compared to a council run club.

I assume you are joking.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
valiant15 said:
How it going duffs,long time no row lol. Just having a few beers and watching your favourite canadian band.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm fine -- Clockwork Angels?

My Avatar is a Rush album if you haven't noticed!
 
V

valiant15

New Member
I was watching time machine tour from last year,going to see them in may,i cant wait! Hadn't noticed your avatar because im laptop free at the moment.
 
T

Tank Top

New Member
covcity4life said:
council fookin the club up
Click to expand...
What a load of unconsidered Bollocks, Lets consider the fact that if it were not for the council stepping in, the Stadium would not have been built, the project was lying tits up in the water and was rescued partly by the council in partnership with the Higgs trust.
The news this week that the council have bought out The Higgs charaties Loan from the yorkshire Bank has to be of credit to Coventry Council, sisus attempt to Bankrupt the Higgs Charity by not paying the rent on the Stadium, Sissu would have bought the Higgs Charaties loan from the Yorkshire Bank and called it in, so forcing the higgs Trust into Administration, so allowing SIssu through the Back door to buy the Higgs holding on the cheap,
Its Beyond me why Some posters are taking sides against the Council, What have they, actually done wrong.
 
Ccfc1979

Ccfc1979

Well-Known Member
The clubs pays circa £10k for all the match day expenses, doesn't it? And they still have whilst withholding the rent, haven't they?
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueSwiss said:
Let me try this again using facts as stated by the parties involved and maths that is as simple as possible.

  1. ACL stated that - when it was being paid - the CCFC rent represented 17% of it's gross turnover. This is not a fact that can be disputed - this was a public statement by ACL.
  2. The contractually agreed rent that ccfc was paying was 1.2 million. This is a fact that cannot be disputed as this has been stated publically many times by ACL, CCFC, the council and others.
  3. CCFC want the rent to be reduced to 170k, which they consider to be a "league 1 average rent". Leaving aside whether or not such a statement is utter nonsense or not as that is an opinion, not a fact, this cannot be disputed as it has been stated in public many times by the parties involved.
  4. Now to the mathematics; if 1,200,000 = 100%, then 170,000 as a percentage of 1,200,000 = (170,000/1,200,000)/100 = 14.1666 recurring = 14.17% rounded = reciprocal of 85.83% reduction. For simplicity I round this up to 86%.
  5. And finally: if rent of 1,200,000 represented 17% of ACL gross income, then a reduction of the CCFC rent to a "league 1 average" of 86% to 170k would by definition meand that CCFC would only represent 17% x 14% = 2.38% of ACL's gross income. I will kindly round this up to 2.4%.
So using actual published facts and very simple, straightforward mathematics, it is mathematically prooven that if SISU get their way on the rent, CCFC will only represent 2.4% of ACL'S gross income. Now that is GROSS income, so what portion of NET income do you think CCFC would then represent. Given the fact that it is very costly to maintain the grounds, subsoil heating, policing, cleaning staff, tying up the Ricoh when it POTENTIALLY could be used for other things etc. etc. etc.
When you add it all up, the bottom line would very likely be that the football club would have a negative effect on the net income under these circumstances. In other words, if SISU get their way, ACL would make more net profit without the football club without getting any new sources of income at all.

On top of that, ACL have - until CCFC stopped paying the rent - been quite profitable. Now that they have refinanced their debt, they are significantly MORE profitable than they were in the past.
So the "Where are they going to get new business from if CCFC leave " argument is a fallacy. Without any new income at all, it would appear that ACL would, under these new conditions, be better off without the football club than with the football club dragging them down and tying up their facilities for 9 months of the year. Any new business they generated after the club left would just be icing on the cake.





Think that pretty much wraps that one up.

Thanks SkyblueSwiss
Click to expand...
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
SkyBlueSwiss said:
Let me try this again using facts as stated by the parties involved and maths that is as simple as possible.

  1. ACL stated that - when it was being paid - the CCFC rent represented 17% of it's gross turnover. This is not a fact that can be disputed - this was a public statement by ACL.
  2. The contractually agreed rent that ccfc was paying was 1.2 million. This is a fact that cannot be disputed as this has been stated publically many times by ACL, CCFC, the council and others.
  3. CCFC want the rent to be reduced to 170k, which they consider to be a "league 1 average rent". Leaving aside whether or not such a statement is utter nonsense or not as that is an opinion, not a fact, this cannot be disputed as it has been stated in public many times by the parties involved.
  4. Now to the mathematics; if 1,200,000 = 100%, then 170,000 as a percentage of 1,200,000 = (170,000/1,200,000)/100 = 14.1666 recurring = 14.17% rounded = reciprocal of 85.83% reduction. For simplicity I round this up to 86%.
  5. And finally: if rent of 1,200,000 represented 17% of ACL gross income, then a reduction of the CCFC rent to a "league 1 average" of 86% to 170k would by definition meand that CCFC would only represent 17% x 14% = 2.38% of ACL's gross income. I will kindly round this up to 2.4%.
So using actual published facts and very simple, straightforward mathematics, it is mathematically prooven that if SISU get their way on the rent, CCFC will only represent 2.4% of ACL'S gross income. Now that is GROSS income, so what portion of NET income do you think CCFC would then represent. Given the fact that it is very costly to maintain the grounds, subsoil heating, policing, cleaning staff, tying up the Ricoh when it POTENTIALLY could be used for other things etc. etc. etc.
When you add it all up, the bottom line would very likely be that the football club would have a negative effect on the net income under these circumstances. In other words, if SISU get their way, ACL would make more net profit without the football club without getting any new sources of income at all.

On top of that, ACL have - until CCFC stopped paying the rent - been quite profitable. Now that they have refinanced their debt, they are significantly MORE profitable than they were in the past.
So the "Where are they going to get new business from if CCFC leave " argument is a fallacy. Without any new income at all, it would appear that ACL would, under these new conditions, be better off without the football club than with the football club dragging them down and tying up their facilities for 9 months of the year. Any new business they generated after the club left would just be icing on the cake.





Think that pretty much wraps that one up.

Thanks SkyblueSwiss
Click to expand...

It has more holes in it than the cheese he no doubt consumes.
Click to expand...
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Bankrupt the charadee? No chance! They have assets of over £20M

And it's beyond me that some people support ACL and the Council over the team they supposedly support.

Tank Top said:
What a load of unconsidered Bollocks, Lets consider the fact that if it were not for the council stepping in, the Stadium would not have been built, the project was lying tits up in the water and was rescued partly by the council in partnership with the Higgs trust.
The news this week that the council have bought out The Higgs charaties Loan from the yorkshire Bank has to be of credit to Coventry Council, sisus attempt to Bankrupt the Higgs Charity by not paying the rent on the Stadium, Sissu would have bought the Higgs Charaties loan from the Yorkshire Bank and called it in, so forcing the higgs Trust into Administration, so allowing SIssu through the Back door to buy the Higgs holding on the cheap,
Its Beyond me why Some posters are taking sides against the Council, What have they, actually done wrong.
Click to expand...
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Yes, they do, but it's best not to mention it as it goes against the "SISU don't pay any money are are taking food out of the orphans' mouths" attitude we get on here.

Ccfc1979 said:
The clubs pays circa £10k for all the match day expenses, doesn't it? And they still have whilst withholding the rent, haven't they?
Click to expand...
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Just be another department.
It would be accountable and transparent
And successful at league one level anyway.
Tickets would be a bit more discounted as well.
Click to expand...

I love your sense of humour - nice one.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Ccfc1979 said:
The clubs pays circa £10k for all the match day expenses, doesn't it? And they still have whilst withholding the rent, haven't they?
Click to expand...

Why should that be free? People have to be hired and equipment bought and maintained to do that.. the club isn't a charity.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
He's not saying it should be free, he is saying that they still pay over £200K in fees every year. There is perception they don't pay anything, which is simply not true.

Anyway, getting me woolies on ready for the off.
Jack Griffin said:
Why should that be free? People have to be hired and equipment bought and maintained to do that.. the club isn't a charity.
Click to expand...
 
GaryPendrysEyes

GaryPendrysEyes

Well-Known Member
Skyblue4u said:
At the end of the day the arena was only ever built because of CCFC. Let's hope the council and ACL never forget that
Click to expand...

The arena was built because the club begged the council to help fund it. CCFC should never forget, or the fans that were duped by BR/GR into pressuring the council to build a new ground we didnt need.
The club getting gullible fans to pressure the council for dubious purposes--- who of thunk it :facepalm:
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dadgad said:
The guys in white coats can't be too far away.........:thinking about:
Click to expand...

Go today Dagdad? Seem not even to know who scored the winning goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top