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?
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.
It's a shame the council are not allowed to run CCFC.
It's a shame the council are not allowed to run CCFC.
It's a shame the council are not allowed to run CCFC.
How it going duffs,long time no row lol. Just having a few beers and watching your favourite canadian band.
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
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.council fookin the club up
I would say running a counsel would be far more complexed than running a league one football club !!!
Let me try this again using facts as stated by the parties involved and maths that is as simple as possible.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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%.
- 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%.
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
Let me try this again using facts as stated by the parties involved and maths that is as simple as possible.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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%.
- 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%.
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
It has more holes in it than the cheese he no doubt consumes.
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.
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?
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.
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?
It has more holes in it than the cheese he no doubt consumes.
As usual an unconstructive response with no substance or justification. Why don't you find a grumpy old men board to go & play on?
Why should that be free? People have to be hired and equipment bought and maintained to do that.. the club isn't a charity.
It has more holes in it than the cheese he no doubt consumes.
Grendel loses another argument....
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
Grendel loses another argument....
Yeah you're right. When is the horse of the year show at the Ricoh? Twickinham are in a right sweat and Northampton saints are bulldozing the ground as we speak.
Grendel loses another argument....
Grendel: beware the fish
Grendel loses another argument....
Three times in one thread, quite remarkably
Three times in one thread, quite remarkably
Oh when the (Northampton) saints go marching in
When the saints go marching in
I want to be in that number
When the saints go marching in
When will it be MMM.
Three times in one thread, quite remarkably
I have lost no argument MMM.
As ever no one wants to discuss any of the issues of raises. Bean counters invariably know nothing about sales marketing or franchise location planning.
The guys in white coats can't be too far away.........:thinking about:
I have lost no argument MMM..
Just say that to yourself many times over and you may begin to believe it
Just say that to yourself many times over and you may begin to believe it
Go on confess. You're Nigel aren't you?
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?