Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Because it highlights the absolute stupidity and lack of business sense to be playing in Northampton.
Questions for Simon Gilbert (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfcway
- Start date
Because it highlights the absolute stupidity and lack of business sense to be playing in Northampton.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Maybe because it's key to the reason we have lost 90% of our fanbase?
I know you think there's 9000 council plants trying to unseat Sisu, but it turns out moving the club with no reasoning pisses some people off.
If they explained why they had to leave for financial reasons they'd get a lot more support.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
If I could just ask one question, it would be this:
If we can for the moment accept SISU's assertion that they are going to build a new stadium in "the Coventry area", it would seem to me that any rational business would want to do two things in the interim period.
Firstly they would want to maximise profits/minimise losses.
Secondly they would want to do what they could to maintain support in the Coventry area, to maximise probable revenue when the stadium is ready for use.
It seems pretty clear that both of these objectives would be satisfied by accepting the deal put to them by ACL via the Football League.
So why have they not accepted the offer?
The only attempt at a rationale that I have heard was given by ML in one of his interviews on CWR when he stated (my paraphrase) that having ACL as a landlord even on this short term basis would "put their business model at risk" (I think that that quote is pretty accurate, but am happy to be corrected). He did not explain how ACL would do this.
If I had a second question it would be:
SISU have stated that they are prepared to fund the losses at Northampton and are additionally going to fund the building of the new stadium. This has, I think, been reported as requiring investment of £20m to £25m. Presumably the figure will be at the higher end of the range given the recent decision to increase planned capacity to (if I remember correctly) 15,000 or 16,000.
Given that the Ricoh already exists, has capacity of 32,000 and (it appears from the recent accounts) some growing income streams, wouldn't it be logical to offer the council and the Higgs at least the sum of the additional Northampton losses and the stadium build cost to acquire the stadium and ACL? Given the Ricoh is about double the capacity a higher figure would be logical, but no one makes their best offer to start with.
I'm not suggesting that the offer would necessarily be acceptable but it would at least show that SISU were serious in trying to move things forward.
If we can for the moment accept SISU's assertion that they are going to build a new stadium in "the Coventry area", it would seem to me that any rational business would want to do two things in the interim period.
Firstly they would want to maximise profits/minimise losses.
Secondly they would want to do what they could to maintain support in the Coventry area, to maximise probable revenue when the stadium is ready for use.
It seems pretty clear that both of these objectives would be satisfied by accepting the deal put to them by ACL via the Football League.
So why have they not accepted the offer?
The only attempt at a rationale that I have heard was given by ML in one of his interviews on CWR when he stated (my paraphrase) that having ACL as a landlord even on this short term basis would "put their business model at risk" (I think that that quote is pretty accurate, but am happy to be corrected). He did not explain how ACL would do this.
If I had a second question it would be:
SISU have stated that they are prepared to fund the losses at Northampton and are additionally going to fund the building of the new stadium. This has, I think, been reported as requiring investment of £20m to £25m. Presumably the figure will be at the higher end of the range given the recent decision to increase planned capacity to (if I remember correctly) 15,000 or 16,000.
Given that the Ricoh already exists, has capacity of 32,000 and (it appears from the recent accounts) some growing income streams, wouldn't it be logical to offer the council and the Higgs at least the sum of the additional Northampton losses and the stadium build cost to acquire the stadium and ACL? Given the Ricoh is about double the capacity a higher figure would be logical, but no one makes their best offer to start with.
I'm not suggesting that the offer would necessarily be acceptable but it would at least show that SISU were serious in trying to move things forward.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Simon thanks for taking the time to answer.
I think that particular question needs to be explored in some actual detail though.
The FL have allowed us to move to Northampton as a new stadium will be built.
MP's are starting to look at our situation.
Just saying we will also get promotion does not answer the question.
We need an answer on how will SUSU get a return to their investors.
Reading cost 50 million for the stadium and club so it can't be that way.
Then it has to be via yearly profit.
We currently lose 7 million a year. We need accounting to SISU another 20 million to build the stadium. ( I would argue more)
We pay over a million to AVRO in interest on the 10 million they lent us so far.
If we end up paying 3 million in interest. I can't see how each year we can pay off our investors?
What will we get in F&B from our 15k stadium.
Mr Lobovitch offered a fans forum with Steve Brookfield to clear this kind of thing up.
Is there anyway you can press him on the fans forum. If he us now side stepping it could you ask him these questions.
He has to be able to answer this. If he can't then they don't have a business case for a new stadium and we should be back in Coventry
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
We weren't offered additional revenue as part of the Ricoh deal, they offered to cross invoice so that it could be counted towards our turnover.
I cannot see how a new stadium will get their money back. I also can't see how renting the Ricoh for £400k per annum will get their money back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
However one of those options has been believed plausible by the FL. Hence why we are in Northampton. If it is not realistic then this needs to be exposed.
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Never had an answer yet.
Will keep asking, CWR,MP's, CET,FL
Until I do.
FL believed a new stadium will be built
If this question can't be answered then it won't be built.
I can't ask SISU as the promised fans forum has not happened.
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yes, the F&B's was just cross invoicing so it could count as revenue towards FFP, it would result in no actual cash for the club so Is pretty much worthless.
It's obvious that one is more damaging, however renting the Ricoh albeit cheaper changes very little. If we ever get on the Championship we will continue to have one of the lowest turnovers, and therefore wage bills and spending power, we'll still be making losses and still own no assets.
I don't want the new stadium, I don't want to be at Sixfields, I'm just pointing out that a return on a rental deal without proper access to additional revenues is just a return to the status quo.
9 teams in the championship had lower attendances than us, yet we were in the bottom 3-4 turnovers in the league.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
So the onus is on SISU to make an approach ?
Going to be a cold day in hell before that happens, but at least we know where the current stumbling block is !
We just need 1,500 others to realise it
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Sisu have made it clear they won't return to the Arena on a tenant-landlord basis and want the freehold of the Arena. That means ACL would have to step aside or be bought out.
ACL would not step aside and allow sale of the unencumbered freehold of the Arena. It would mean they wouldn't exist, so where's the benefit to ACL? As for a buy out, there's certainly a difference in opinion as to ACL's value.
CCC (as part owners of ACL) has also said the unencumbered freehold of the Ricoh is not on the table.
It's stalemate at the moment I'm afraid.
I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong. Just where we are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
My understanding is that the club plans to host a forum in April chaired by an 'independent' person.
Mr Labovitch wants all parties represented.
That seems unlikely as CCC / ACL have previously had a largely 'no comment' policy on the Ricoh Arena saga while the judicial review is pending.
As for the Higgs Trust, there's the small matter of a court case next month which may affect any decision to take part.
If they can get the FA / Football League to attend, they'll have done a better job than I've been able to!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
stalemate, but only because SISU have made it clear they wont return on a tenant basis. There is simply no reason why they shouldnt do this in the short term until their stadium is built. arent SISU are 100% at fault for this ?
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Whether you believe Sisu plan to build a new stadium or not, they won't return in the interim because they claim they are unable to trust ACL / CCC.
It's a horrible mess and the only people who seem to suffer are the supporters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can'y really return as that Debunks the theory that they cannot work with and were forced out ,to support their legal challenges.
Simon did you get the PM ~I sent through this site on Friday?
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I think it's fairly clear that SISU don't trust ACL/CCC and it's equally clear that ACL/CCC don't trust SISU.
However, it wouldn't be the first business relationship in history where the contracting parties didn't send Xmas cards to each other....
I'd be interested to understand exactly what SISU believe ACL/CCC could do to damage them, if they returned as a short term tenant under a properly drafted contract.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I think Labo knows full well that CC & ACL will not attend leaving him with an excuse to not hold it & play the blame game.
If he wants a forum to be independent he should ask an independent conciliation service (or some body wholly uninvolved) to organise a forum for him and leave all the decisions about format and who can attend to them. I wouldn't call someone for instance like Garlik or Sinclaire or Ainsworth independent myself.
If he wants a forum to be independent he should ask an independent conciliation service (or some body wholly uninvolved) to organise a forum for him and leave all the decisions about format and who can attend to them. I wouldn't call someone for instance like Garlik or Sinclaire or Ainsworth independent myself.
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
I have now! Will investigate further. Thanks.
Feel free to email me anything you think might be useful [email protected]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Indeed. There are a few things each side could do to push towards resolution of sorts, and potentially get popular opinion onside. The SISU offer is one, of course. I still don't understand why there's been no shouting to CCC to find the club some land, and offer it them for sale.
If somebody wants to build a leisure facility in the city we should be actively encouraging it and, well... if they don't, then what better way to show that than cut off one of their avenues of rhetoric? In fact, another question would be whether SISU/the club have even bothered to look for land in Coventry, or are they exclusively restricted to the Coventry area? If the latter, can they explain why this is. If they have looked in the city boundary itself but any options have been unsuitable, can they explain why? If land were offered within the CCC boundary for a stadium, would they be prepared to accept it?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Geoffrey Robinson, it's the only answer.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Exactly. In fairness Simon's doing a great job, and can only report the answers he's given, but this lack of trust thing is utterly bogus. That's precisely what contracts are for.
If ACL said we don't trust SISU and therefore we won't have the club back, they'd be slaughtered and rightly so. SISU own the club, ACL own the Ricoh - both sides have to accept that if we're to move on, but one side seems to refuse to do that.
As I see it the only reason SISU won't come back is because they're determined to distress ACL - they just don't want to admit it.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes, the F&B's was just cross invoicing so it could count as revenue towards FFP, it would result in no actual cash for the club so Is pretty much worthless.
It's obvious that one is more damaging, however renting the Ricoh albeit cheaper changes very little. If we ever get on the Championship we will continue to have one of the lowest turnovers, and therefore wage bills and spending power, we'll still be making losses and still own no assets.
I don't want the new stadium, I don't want to be at Sixfields, I'm just pointing out that a return on a rental deal without proper access to additional revenues is just a return to the status quo.
9 teams in the championship had lower attendances than us, yet we were in the bottom 3-4 turnovers in the league.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Fair comment
Just wish our plan A was explained adequately.
For the FL to allow us to move 35 miles away they must be confident the stadium will be built.
So why can't it be explained to the fans so we can stop worrying.
Or did the FL not really ask for any business plan?
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Thanks Simon. in my opinion, this is EXACTLY what the FL / FA should get invloved in. Brokeer the deal between the two, get a solicitor to ensure any rental contract is water tight on bot sides and we are good to go.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Again thanks for the reply.
Without sounding too far up your backside
In a couple of months reporting on this matter you seem prepared to do far more than your predecessor.
If the club plan to do that in April fantastic.
I think Mr Labovitch said they plan to do it whether the council partake or not.
So we should hear about a date any day soon?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yes, the F&B's was just cross invoicing so it could count as revenue towards FFP, it would result in no actual cash for the club so Is pretty much worthless.
It's obvious that one is more damaging, however renting the Ricoh albeit cheaper changes very little. If we ever get on the Championship we will continue to have one of the lowest turnovers, and therefore wage bills and spending power, we'll still be making losses and still own no assets.
I don't want the new stadium, I don't want to be at Sixfields, I'm just pointing out that a return on a rental deal without proper access to additional revenues is just a return to the status quo.
9 teams in the championship had lower attendances than us, yet we were in the bottom 3-4 turnovers in the league.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The problem is why not take up the offer for 50% of ACL and all the revenues that come with it? Why not enter the negotiations offered on buying back the F&B revenue?
The Sisu argument only makes sense if you ignore their actions.
I'd also point out that it's not about F&B now, but unfettered access to land.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Anyway
Something completely off topic
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/londons-laundry-business.html?referrer=
Something completely off topic
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/londons-laundry-business.html?referrer=
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Can you ask if this is in addition to the promised forum with him, Waggott and the accountant that he promised live on CWR to specifically address detailed financial questions the fans have?
If not, why did he offer the aforementioned forum, and will at least all stated members (Waggott, accountant) be given time to answer the detailed financial questions (that have nothing to do with the council or Higgs or ACL) at this other forum?
Thanks.
I may be wrong, but acquiring 50% share in ACL do not give absolute control and so I think ACL revenue (even part of) cannot be used for FFP.
Happy to be corrected if anyone know otherwise.
But if true - then buying the Higgs shares in ACL is not enough, but then if the club could acquire 1% from CCC then absolute control would be with the club and so all ACL revenue could be used for FFP calculation.
Somehow I doubt CCC would sell even 1%.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The original share we had included all matchday revenues, I can't imagine the FL would be able to justify excluding matchday revenues from FFP.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I though ACL had already offered the club the ability to cross invoice matchday turnover for the purpose of FFP even under a rental deal?
Didn't we sell the F/B in a separate transaction?
I am not an accountant so I may be wrong, but I think the club cannot include ACL revenue in the group accounts without having absolute control.
So it can't be used towards FFP?
Maybe OSB can help me out or more likely put me right.
Yes, but it's not really just the matchday revenue ... that only amount to £1m. It all revenue amounting to £13m.
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
My understanding is that this forum is instead.
Mr Labovitch said he wanted wider issues, as well as the accounts, to be addressed.
He did, however, say that if there are specific questions about the accounts that need answering then the club would be happy to do that.
My understanding, from a recent interview, is that he doesn't want to answer these questions through the Trust. Who he doesn't trust. Ironically.
I think they will hold this forum with or without the input of other parties.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
But aren't there rules about non matchday income being used for FFP?
I might be wrong, but I thought for instance a concert couldn't be used in the calculation? Surely that wouldn't change even if the club owned ACL?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Would you or one of your Telegraph colleagues be willing to put a few questions to Mr Labovitch at these forums on behalf of fans who cant be there? They could be submitted via the Telegraph twitter page.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
So, they are "unable to trust CCC/ACL" and they don't trust the Trust.
You have to wonder if they are very unlucky in all the people they have to deal with, or whether it just might have something to do with the way they choose to behave.
There may be rules, but if the club owns ACL I am pretty sure all ACL revenue would count towards FFP. Ownership can be through shareholdings, so could be in a separate company (subsidiary).
Edit: If a concert is held in a football stadium, that would create a revenue from leasing out the football stadium. Kind of similar to revenue from loaning out a football player.
Last edited: