Well said M m m
They were both working off budgets at the start. Why should ACL adjust theirs because SISU failed miserably (apparently).
A lot on here have supported Sisu's tactics and pretty much stuck two fingers up at ACL and had survival of the fittest attitude !!!
Im unhappy that Sisu's tactics have definately cost us the best manager we have had in twenty years !!!
Yawn yawn. More nonsense from you. Robins left for money. Unless of course you believe Mr Greedy and the lack of support from the council is to blame.
If you ignore the relative rent for a moment, that leaves anyone running the cub with an elegantly simple business plan to adhere to. They retain some 85% of ticket income to bring about a turnover in the parish of £8m at 22K attendance, or closer to £7m for gates the like of which SISU inherited. Which is topped up with net transfer fee surplus (SISU have made much more that they've invested in player transfers over term), TV revenues, shirt sponsorship and club shop fare to give an operating income. Against which expenditure is matched.
From this simple model, where has £45m invested since December 2007 come from? Or £6m lost in the last set of accounts alone?
It does appear - does it not - that an opportunity to start 'debt free' has been blown, doesn't it?
And as I keep asking, if at entity can't make something out of something so simple; why do they deserve additional income to potentially squander?
I'd like to understand your candid comments on one issue old boy; as it was running through my mind yesterday. Think about the 'design' of the financial plan behind the Arena. We all know ACL stepped in due to the club's inability to finish the project. A number of decisions were made on or around that time, catering subcontracted to a third-party, etc - all of which appeared correct at the time. ACL even offered McGinnity a 'stepped' rental - more in the Premier League, less in lower divisions; which he rejected (this is an issue SISU could have sought to address in their due diligence, but didn't - bit that's another story).
We all know that the Arena was estimated in income in terms of a 22K gate. If you assume a 30-game season, allowing for cup games, the rental would have equated to about £1.90 per ticket per game. At the time SISU took over, the gates were close to 18K - so then £2.20 per game.
If you ignore the relative rent for a moment, that leaves anyone running the cub with an elegantly simple business plan to adhere to. They retain some 85% of ticket income to bring about a turnover in the parish of £8m at 22K attendance, or closer to £7m for gates the like of which SISU inherited. Which is topped up with net transfer fee surplus (SISU have made much more that they've invested in player transfers over term), TV revenues, shirt sponsorship and club shop fare to give an operating income. Against which expenditure is matched.
From this simple model, where has £45m invested since December 2007 come from? Or £6m lost in the last set of accounts alone?
It does appear - does it not - that an opportunity to start 'debt free' has been blown, doesn't it?
And as I keep asking, if at entity can't make something out of something so simple; why do they deserve additional income to potentially squander?
Well if I was a council house rent payer the Council would have served and implemented an Eviction order by now and wouldhave had the courts backing! So do we assume that ACL really have CCFC interest at heart and do not want to be seen as the Instrument that finally Nailed CCFC? Or can we assume that they cannot get anybody else to take up the hole that CCFC would leave in their budgets and the realit is that the Ricoh Arena cannot survive on concerts alone or piddly events run at the Jaguar Hall every couple of weeks. Does anyone know how much it costs to run the Ricoh in a given year?
I bet its more than £400K
Ranson blew it.
The economic world changed and the gates declined. Ranson failed to cut costs accordingly.
So yes - an opportunity to start 'debt free' has been blown.
I think the question you are asking is why we have lost more and more money.
The answer is the SISU appointed representatives spent without proper budgeting. Ranson was not fit for purpose and in the early years SISU did nothing to manage costs -- quite odd for a Hedge Fund.
Look at some of the purchases and salaries -- Eastwood £1.5 million and a 5 year deal - he will have cost £4 million alone. Ranson sacked managers paying 3 at a time at one point. He blew it.
If the club bought the Higgs share in which they are entitled to do so for a fee in the region of 10million.
Would'nt this make them entitled to half of all ACL's revenue streams ?
I don't disagree with that. However, I think you can see that - at the time contracts were drawn-up - there was an ambition to give the club a simple business plan; that really should have been sufficient to not take us where we currently now are. As I tried to state the other day, Aunty Joy has been behind every board; from Ranson through, Onye, Orange Ken and now F&W. As such, and it being 'One-SISU'; the current lack of grace in negotiation is a touch startling, isn't it?
And do you also not agree that a touch less ill-feeling in negotiation might have arrived at a more prompt conclusion than where we currently are?
I think the question you are asking is why we have lost more and more money.
The answer is the SISU appointed representatives spent without proper budgeting. Ranson was not fit for purpose and in the early years SISU did nothing to manage costs -- quite odd for a Hedge Fund.
Look at some of the purchases and salaries -- Eastwood £1.5 million and a 5 year deal - he will have cost £4 million alone. Ranson sacked managers paying 3 at a time at one point. He blew it.
Ranson's motives seem far clearer and he had no risk.
Not so, his stake was Prozone ... and he lost it.
Not so, his stake was Prozone ... and he lost it.
The problem is the whole motivation behind the purchase is unclear from their perspective. Ranson's motives seem far clearer and he had no risk. All the other clubs would have been a better bet. It was an ill though through lazy purchase. It seems they just gave it to Ranson as a toy and told him to get on with it. I doubt they even thought about rent implications -- to even buy a club with no assets was dumb anyway.
I guess one day someone in SISU HQ actually looked at the clubs financial performance and thought "Oh dear this is going South". They then hit the panic button. This always happens in many companies - knee jerk cost cutting. Ranson's replacement good old Ken was more evidence they were clueless. He did to us what he almost did to Southampton. Insane cost cutting without thought of the loss of revenue his actions would result in.
Fisher is the best of the three. The problem of course is his task is to recover the disastrous losses from prior years and the only way this is remotely possible is to get the asset base up as at least he understands the need to remain competitive on the field. So he is attempting to sieze control.
The relationship is broken. I cannot ever see an agreement between these two parties as they are at war with each other. In the short term the club is hoping that the Council will not dare take the action they can take. They won't yet. In the summer something will have to give. SISU will I think want all their objectives fulfilled or its goodnight all.
I thought he sold it to the Group and I was under the impression the club had to at the point of takeover loan money to Ransons company portfolio - loans that are still being paid back.
Given SISU have made a truly awful job of running the club so far, and have behaved reprehensibly in their efforts to clamour for additional income; what confidence can you instill in me that they deserve a bigger train set to play with?
ACL have constructed a tidy little business, against a model agreed with CCFC's officers at the time. You now want them to give away income to support a company that's so far proven itself incapable of operating properly. Do you know that the club lost in its last set of accounts? Over £6m in one trading year. How can this be managed from a debt-free position?
Originally Posted by CCFC_GT http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26902-Moderator/showthread.php?p=370662#post370662
If I am right this means that the only way CCFC can spend more on the team is if it gets additional revenues. So unless there is significant change on the revenue front (and I just can't see ACL agreeing to this under any circumstances) we just have to hope that we can win promotion with the present level of spending on the squad.
if it helps I posted a thread about how FFP is calculated earlier
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26949-FFP-rules
Rent btw is classed as an overhead not a cost of sales
if it helps I posted a thread about how FFP is calculated earlier
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26949-FFP-rules
Rent btw is classed as an overhead not a cost of sales
if it helps I posted a thread about how FFP is calculated earlier
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26949-FFP-rules
Rent btw is classed as an overhead not a cost of sales
Thanks OSB, but where does it define rent as an overhead and excluded from cost of sales? I think Fisher in that interview mentioned costs as in excess of £1m and I would have thought rent was the major part of it.
imp:
Thanks OSB, but where does it define rent as an overhead and excluded from cost of sales? I think Fisher in that interview mentioned costs as in excess of £1m and I would have thought rent was the major part of it.
imp:
Thanks OSB, I hoped you would chip in with some guidance. So are my assumptions (as far as they go) on the effect of FFP correct? They seem to be, having checked your thread.
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?