Rent Money owed to ACL rumour (10 Viewers)

[The Gentleman]

They have already said some of the finance will be equity. So let's say a third is equity

So £20m over 40 years at 10% is £81.8m
But you can also get say £1.5m income per annum at least by F&B's, stand sponsorship, etc. so that's £60m. So that's net of £21.8m

Or

£1.3m x 40 years with no addition income from F&B's, stand sponsorship, etc = £52m.

Again I'm not advocating a new stadium but it isn't as simple as rent vs mortgage costs.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Why are you comparing the new stadium with an old rental deal. Could you not use the rental deal of £400k per annum with access to revenue streams rather than the old one just to suit your argument?

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

Yes you did. The theory behind the land purchase is the same as that of the Ricoh - namely it becomes self funding by the sale of part of it as real estate to create shopping outlets.

Did your "invester" friend (is that rhyming slang for Leicester?) have to pass a series of fitness tests with all major finance houses before you spoke to him Mr Billy Bullshit?

So you know SISUs project is a based on a shopping park, who told you that?

BTW It's spelt investor in English.

 

[stupot07]

Why are you comparing the new stadium with an old rental deal. Could you not use the rental deal of £400k per annum with access to revenue streams rather than the old one just to suit your argument?

Why? Because that exactly what No Future Without Sisu did (#276)

And the £400k didn't include access to revenue streams it included cross invoicing of F&B's to allow it to count towards F&B's not actually cash in real terms coming into the club. And then even if you did to me (completely fictional maths like the rest on here makes you only about £5m better off at Ricoh over 40 years, but without having an assert on your balance sheet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[martcov]

Why? Because that exactly what No Future Without Sisu did (#276)

And the £400k didn't include access to revenue streams it included cross invoicing of F&B's to allow it to count towards F&B's not actually cash in real terms coming into the club. And then even if you did to me (completely fictional maths like the rest on here makes you only about £5m better off at Ricoh over 40 years, but without having an assert on your balance sheet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

What is the expected life of a stadium? Highfield Road modern stands were 60's. By 2005 the team were playing in the Ricoh and Highfield Road was being demolished.

How much would your stadium buildings be worth 40 years from now as an asset?

 

[skybluetony176]

It still gets me that people believe that the club will own the ground and have it sitting on the clubs books as an asset when sisu have never actually said that but are quite happy to let people assume it.

 

[stupot07]

What is the expected life of a stadium? Highfield Road modern stands were 60's. By 2005 the team were playing in the Ricoh and Highfield Road was being demolished.

How much would your stadium buildings be worth 40 years from now as an asset?

No idea, again this is literally in response to post #276. Perhaps we should never have agreed a 50 year rental deal at the Ricoh as it will be virtually collapsing in another 5-10 years,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Jack Griffin]

It still gets me that people believe that the club will own the ground and have it sitting on the clubs books as an asset when sisu have never actually said that but are quite happy to let people assume it.

Sitting on ARVO's books as an asset that charges a commercial rent more like.

 

[stupot07]

It still gets me that people believe that the club will own the ground and have it sitting on the clubs books as an asset when sisu have never actually said that but are quite happy to let people assume it.

But the other side of the coin is that you believe that it won't be part of the same group accounts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Jack Griffin]

But the other side of the coin is that you believe that it won't be part of the same group accounts.

There is no clarity is there.

 

[stupot07]

There is no clarity is there.

Agreed. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[skybluetony176]

But the other side of the coin is that you believe that it won't be part of the same group accounts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I don't believe anything. I want facts of what will or won't happen and how it will or won't benefit the club before I start championing it as a good idea.

It's called due diligence. Just because sisu didn't do theirs doesn't mean we shouldn't do ours.

 

[No future with SISU]

Yes you did. The theory behind the land purchase is the same as that of the Ricoh - namely it becomes self funding by the sale of part of it as real estate to create shopping outlets.

Did your "invester" friend (is that rhyming slang for Leicester?) have to pass a series of fitness tests with all major finance houses before you spoke to him Mr Billy Bullshit?

What shopping outlets, I did not see any on that drawing SISU produced. You are makeing things up again or just following the RICOH plan.Is that your name Billy?

 

[No future with SISU]

They have already said some of the finance will be equity. So let's say a third is equity

So £20m over 40 years at 10% is £81.8m
But you can also get say £1.5m income per annum at least by F&B's, stand sponsorship, etc. so that's £60m. So that's net of £21.8m

Or

£1.3m x 40 years with no addition income from F&B's, stand sponsorship, etc = £52m.

Again I'm not advocating a new stadium but it isn't as simple as rent vs mortgage costs.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

The rent was all ready on the way down as ACL had offered to reduce it, so the £1.2m figures are out. The club were already getting a lot of sponsership so the only money there would be nameing rights and not worth a lot on a 12,000 seat stadium in nuneaton.

 

[Astute]

For me it's more the fact ACL have kept it quiet and the link between that the CVA and the settlement from CVA. It seems to me that it suits ACL to hide it as it makes them look more out of pocket than they were. Smoke and mirrors.

Ah yes smoke and mirrors. Like SISU not telling us that they had the rebate from CCC?

 

[martcov]

No idea, again this is literally in response to post #276. Perhaps we should never have agreed a 50 year rental deal at the Ricoh as it will be virtually collapsing in another 5-10 years,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

In that unlikely event it would be up to ACL as owners to sort it out, not the tenants.

 

[martcov]

In that unlikely event it would be up to ACL as owners to sort it out, not the tenants.

Or maybe CCC as ACL are also tenants.

 

[stupot07]

The rent was all ready on the way down as ACL had offered to reduce it, so the £1.2m figures are out. The club were already getting a lot of sponsership so the only money there would be nameing rights and not worth a lot on a 12,000 seat stadium in nuneaton.

So why did you quote £1.2m rent in your calculations? Club only get Pitchside advertising not naming rights or stand sponsorship, and now you're changing the goalposts to a 12k stadium. This was all started by your maths


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[stupot07]

Ah yes smoke and mirrors. Like SISU not telling us that they had the rebate from CCC?

Yes exactly like that, sisu do use smoke and mirrors nether said they haven't. ACL also use smoke and mirrors but a lot of posters on here seem either ignorant to that or are naive in thinking that it's only sisu that do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[stupot07]

In that unlikely event it would be up to ACL as owners to sort it out, not the tenants.

They will probably be some clause that says ccfc have to contribute to unplanned maintenance just like the Higgs centre charging the club for £15k repairs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Astute]

Yes exactly like that, sisu do use smoke and mirrors nether said they haven't. ACL also use smoke and mirrors but a lot of posters on here seem either ignorant to that or are naive in thinking that it's only sisu that do it.

I partially agree with you. CCC/ACL don't make any comments at the moment because of the JR. CCC didn't even mention that they had paid SISU the rent rebate. If it was SISU that had paid the amount there is a good chance that it would have been on the offal the same day.

Once the JR is out of the way I am expecting more information from CCC/ACL........as long as SISU don't start more litigation. But the problem is I am expecting them to start more. And all this will do is split our supporters even more. Maybe this is what they are after.

 

[Astute]

They will probably be some clause that says ccfc have to contribute to unplanned maintenance just like the Higgs centre charging the club for £15k repairs.

Wasn't that for damage caused for instance to the fitness equipment?

 

[stupot07]

Wasn't that for damage caused for instance to the fitness equipment?

Can't remember tbh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[martcov]

Can't remember tbh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

What I was saying is that, if you own your own stadium, you have to account for stadium depreciation in the costing comparison.

Looking at league Grunds, it would be difficult to find one in the upper leagues which hasn't been totaly rebuilt within the last 40 to 50 years. Portsmouth is old and requires lots of maintenance.

 

[skybluetony176]

What I was saying is that, if you own your own stadium, you have to account for stadium depreciation in the costing comparison.

Looking at league Grunds, it would be difficult to find one in the upper leagues which hasn't been totaly rebuilt within the last 40 to 50 years. Portsmouth is old and requires lots of maintenance.

Haven't Portsmouth closed parts of their stadium as they can't afford the upkeep to get the necessary certificates. Wimbledon dog track is the same, parts of it have been closed for years. Part of the reason it seems to be prime for redevelopment as they have lost income from some of the motor sports events that have moved to other stadium because of the reduced capacity.

 

[chiefdave]

Haven't Portsmouth closed parts of their stadium as they can't afford the upkeep to get the necessary certificates.

Correct, parts of Fratton Park are closed for H&S reasons. They are paying in the region of £400K a year in maintenance to get the rest of the ground through H&S.

It's a point that a lot of people miss, owning the stadium doesn't mean you're not paying out money every year.

 

[stupot07]

What I was saying is that, if you own your own stadium, you have to account for stadium depreciation in the costing comparison.

Looking at league Grunds, it would be difficult to find one in the upper leagues which hasn't been totaly rebuilt within the last 40 to 50 years. Portsmouth is old and requires lots of maintenance.

Whilst true, engineering has come a long way since stadiums were originally built, for example with cantilevers instead of posts.

You're making a good case for the council to sell the Ricoh, it will need rebuilding in 30 to 40 years time. Dead money


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Astute]

IIRC the Ricoh was given a 125 year lifespan. This is part of why I would prefer a 99 year lease at a peppercorn rent in a joint venture between CCFC and CCC with the money raised going to our club and whoever owns it. This way if anything happens to our club the Ricoh wouldn't go to our clubs creditors, namely SISU as things stand.

Of course Joy wouldn't be happy with this though.

 

[No future with SISU]

So why did you quote £1.2m rent in your calculations? Club only get Pitchside advertising not naming rights or stand sponsorship, and now you're changing the goalposts to a 12k stadium. This was all started by your maths


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Someone on here said it was good to get out of the rent deal and used the £1.2m rent over 42 years as the reason. I just pointed out (useing those figures) that it is not that bad a deal compared to building a new stadium. Some people keep thinking that building and owning the stadium is the solution to all the problems. It is not.

 

[martcov]

Whilst true, engineering has come a long way since stadiums were originally built, for example with cantilevers instead of posts.

You're making a good case for the council to sell the Ricoh, it will need rebuilding in 30 to 40 years time. Dead money


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Except that it cost so much to build and get planning permission they will never get their investment back by selling. They have it now and should rent it longterm at a cheaper rent thus not having to write it off and keeping control of the freehold to stop speculators mortgaging it. They, CCC, should not have got involved in the stadium bowl of this commercial property - exhibition hall, function suite maybe. CCC can weigh such things as job creation and regeneration against this - ultimately - loss making project.

 

[The Gentleman]

Can't remember tbh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

What no digging up of stats or quotes to back up your argument like you do on most other posts? You must be ill or something

 

[martcov]

IIRC the Ricoh was given a 125 year lifespan. This is part of why I would prefer a 99 year lease at a peppercorn rent in a joint venture between CCFC and CCC with the money raised going to our club and whoever owns it. This way if anything happens to our club the Ricoh wouldn't go to our clubs creditors, namely SISU as things stand.

Of course Joy wouldn't be happy with this though.

I don't believe this stadium will be here in 125 years - in this form. Look at the precinct - modern concept in the 50's and 60's. Old hat now - superceded by super stores and retail parks. Stadium design has moved on from 2005. the original concept of a retractable roof and pitch to enable revenue creation all year was forward thinking, but we couldn't afford it. Someday it may be compulsory to have such things - who knows? I would take a cheap rent for as long as possible and let CCC carry the commercial risk. CCFC's business is football. The only other businesses they should be involved in are attracting sponsorship, selling branded articles and obtaining matchday revenue. If the owners want to get involved in property development, great, but leave the club out of it.

 

[stupot07]

Someone on here said it was good to get out of the rent deal and used the £1.2m rent over 42 years as the reason. I just pointed out (useing those figures) that it is not that bad a deal compared to building a new stadium. Some people keep thinking that building and owning the stadium is the solution to all the problems. It is not.

Fair enough, but then on the flip side using those figures it suggests that the £1.2m rent deal wasn't great because unlike owning the stadium we get no income from it.

I don't think building a stadium is the answer , I don't think there will ever be a new stadium, personally I would like us to have a long lease at the Ricoh, not a just a mere subtenant like we were.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Astute]

I don't believe this stadium will be here in 125 years - in this form. Look at the precinct - modern concept in the 50's and 60's. Old hat now - superceded by super stores and retail parks. Stadium design has moved on from 2005. the original concept of a retractable roof and pitch to enable revenue creation all year was forward thinking, but we couldn't afford it. Someday it may be compulsory to have such things - who knows? I would take a cheap rent for as long as possible and let CCC carry the commercial risk. CCFC's business is football. The only other businesses they should be involved in are attracting sponsorship, selling branded articles and obtaining matchday revenue. If the owners want to get involved in property development, great, but leave the club out of it.

Two things.

1, Building in concrete isn't as good as first thought.

2, They just want the freehold very cheaply to add value to the shit they have caused to get a return for their investors. I don't believe a word they say until they start coming out with some truths.