Rent (1 Viewer)

[lordsummerisle]

I think you would find the charge is set at £1.2m for CCFC usage but they are allowed to pay it over 12 months.... but am guessing

An annual charge then?

Can't we just say that we had a home tournament lined up with Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United with worldwide tv rights, and guaranteed sell-out crowds during the first couple of weeks in August, but because ACL had double booked the stadium for the Olympics we missed out on about £3million of income?

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

An annual charge then?

Can't we just say that we had a home tournament lined up with Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United with worldwide tv rights, and guaranteed sell-out crowds during the first couple of weeks in August, but because ACL had double booked the stadium for the Olympics we missed out on about £3million of income?

well they could try LS but somehow i dont think they could prove it but then again no paperwork at CCFC appears to be transparent in its detail so it might work !

 

[ccfcway]

in all seriousness, surely we could have got SOME income from home friendlies pre season if they Olympis were not on ?

 

[skyblueman]

in all seriousness, surely we could have got SOME income from home friendlies pre season if they Olympis were not on ?

It all really depends on what we are entitled to as part of the rent agreement - I expect we have a certain number of games allowed but for sure don't have rights to use the stadium 365 days a year - all that we are entitled to I suspect is the bare minimum required to support the CCFC fixtures

 

[chiefdave]

An annual charge then?

Can't we just say that we had a home tournament lined up with Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United with worldwide TV rights, and guaranteed sell-out crowds during the first couple of weeks in August, but because ACL had double booked the stadium for the Olympics we missed out on about £3million of income?

You would assume this was covered by the terms of the contract. I can imagine CCFC get first say on dates as the main tenant. Think they would have a case for getting a rent reduction over the Olympic period due to the disruption if they were up to date with the rent but as we all know they aren't so there's little chance of that happening.

What would be useful to know is what clubs in a similar situation pay. wouldn't be straightforward, you'd have to look at cost of build, capacity etc and also if the tenant is getting other match day revenue streams but at the moment we have the club saying the rent is too high and the council saying no it isn't but do any of us really know who's right. my feeling is that, no matter what was signed in the original deal, if we have a deal that's not on a par with others in a similar situation the council should agree to look at making changes. That said the club aren't going about it in the right way by just not paying the rent but for all we know there could already have been rounds of talks that have reached a stalemate.

looking at Man City it looks like the only rent they pay is a % of ticket sales once they go above 32,000 (the capacity of Maine Road). On that basis we wouldn't be paying much at all!!!

 

[skyblueman]

You would assume this was covered by the terms of the contract. I can imagine CCFC get first say on dates as the main tenant. Think they would have a case for getting a rent reduction over the Olympic period due to the disruption if they were up to date with the rent but as we all know they aren't so there's little chance of that happening.

What would be useful to know is what clubs in a similar situation pay. wouldn't be straightforward, you'd have to look at cost of build, capacity etc and also if the tenant is getting other match day revenue streams but at the moment we have the club saying the rent is too high and the council saying no it isn't but do any of us really know who's right. my feeling is that, no matter what was signed in the original deal, if we have a deal that's not on a par with others in a similar situation the council should agree to look at making changes. That said the club aren't going about it in the right way by just not paying the rent but for all we know there could already have been rounds of talks that have reached a stalemate.

looking at Man City it looks like the only rent they pay is a % of ticket sales once they go above 32,000 (the capacity of Maine Road). On that basis we wouldn't be paying much at all!!!

Problem is all the clubs own making - for the facility it's probably not all that high - problem we have is that we don't need it to be as big as it is - we are a club in the 3rd league now with a squad made up of freebies - we never needed this stadium but are now stuck with it and the owners are stuck with us.

The rent is fixed - everyone knew it - that's the first thing that goes down on the costs line when you're putting your budget together - what SISU are doing here is simply unacceptable and puts the club at great risk

 

[oldskyblue58]

Think you will find that with all the success at Man City they have fixed the charge for ground usage at £3m per year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-Manchester-City-won-the-stadium-lottery.html

Walsall pay £427k apparently http://www.expressandstar.com/sport...ll-fc/2012/02/02/accounts-and-accountability/

Crystal Palace were paying £1.2m before administration ..... the administrator tried to get it down to £350k
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/05/crystalpalace-championship

Ipswich pay £100k

not sure that £1.2 state of the art olympic stadium is overly expensive looking at some of that. The problem is that the club has failed to be run properly in a normal business sense for decades..... and SISU share in that failure.

 

[skyblueman]

OSB, as Finance Director would you care to have a stab at where we stand break-even wise? Forget the cash in from sales - purely overheads and wages where we are now - what do you think it is?

 

[oldskyblue58]

my guess is that we are still looking at at least a 2 million loss ...... yes we have saved on wages but not the rent (as yet) but there have been other costs added ...... Waggott , interest to ARVO, legal costs, redundancy costs, agents costs etc

will give it some proper thought later

 

[skyblueman]

my guess is that we are still looking at at least a 2 million loss ...... yes we have saved on wages but not the rent (as yet) but there have been other costs added ...... Waggott , interest to ARVO, legal costs, redundancy costs, agents costs etc

will give it some proper thought later

Cheers OSB - I'd be particularly interested in getting a feel for the core viability of the business going forward - so recent one off costs like player sales, interest to ARVO, legal costs, redundancy costs, agents costs etc should be ring fenced if possible

 

[coundonskyblue]

Think you will find that with all the success at Man City they have fixed the charge for ground usage at £3m per year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-Manchester-City-won-the-stadium-lottery.html

Walsall pay £427k apparently http://www.expressandstar.com/sport...ll-fc/2012/02/02/accounts-and-accountability/

Crystal Palace were paying £1.2m before administration ..... the administrator tried to get it down to £350k
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/05/crystalpalace-championship

Ipswich pay £100k

not sure that £1.2 state of the art olympic stadium is overly expensive looking at some of that. The problem is that the club has failed to be run properly in a normal business sense for decades..... and SISU share in that failure.

If Palace had to pay £1.2m to play at Selhurst Park then our rent looks like deal of the century!

I suppose the difference there though is they probably get some of the income streams.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Ultimately, SISU knew the rent when they bought the club. And they also claimed that they were going to buy the stadium as soon as they bought the club, making the rent irrelevant. They have nobody to blame but themselves for not doing so.

 

[Paxman II]

I think the lease will be for exclusive rights to the stadium use on match days only which will include cup games and the like. Also will have clauses of various kinds so that the pitch can not be ruined for example by an ACl arranged concert!
We in turn must keep the condidtion of said pitch in good order, maintain all the facilities we use including the shop and ofices etc. Outside of that we have no right of passage so to speak.
There are many cross over items shared withing the complex such as the scor board even and sponsorship around the ground on match days.
TV rights allowing access to film and the list must be quite long. There's lots of give and take required. perhaps SISU feel it is heavily weighted in ACL's favour?

£1.2 m is a lot for purely match day use, have your pre season unavailable and based on average attendance rates in the City. There must be room for more common ground. If the club were in the top flight perhaps it would seem reasonable but they are not.
If the idiots who negotiated the original term failed to establish a scale dependant on which league we are in thus directly affecting the turnover then they were real dippy's! maybe SISU want that part of it re established and would seek a judgement on that. A bit like a criminal signing a confession after a gruelling interogation left him weak and unable to make a wise decision when he signed. The decision to agree can be shown as incompetent by previous owners etc etc...

If I was SISU I'd make the same stand.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Problem is Paxman that all recent owners of the club assumed that the only way we'd get out of The Championship was upwards, not downwards: that would have meant writing in a clause saying it would rise if we were promoted. Seeing as they thought that only a matter of time, they would have wanted to avoid such a clause. Only SISU really had the vision to see us as a L1 club :thinking about:

 

[skyblueman]

I think the lease will be for exclusive rights to the stadium use on match days only which will include cup games and the like. Also will have clauses of various kinds so that the pitch can not be ruined for example by an ACl arranged concert!
We in turn must keep the condidtion of said pitch in good order, maintain all the facilities we use including the shop and ofices etc. Outside of that we have no right of passage so to speak.
There are many cross over items shared withing the complex such as the scor board even and sponsorship around the ground on match days.
TV rights allowing access to film and the list must be quite long. There's lots of give and take required. perhaps SISU feel it is heavily weighted in ACL's favour?

£1.2 m is a lot for purely match day use, have your pre season unavailable and based on average attendance rates in the City. There must be room for more common ground. If the club were in the top flight perhaps it would seem reasonable but they are not.
If the idiots who negotiated the original term failed to establish a scale dependant on which league we are in thus directly affecting the turnover then they were real dippy's! maybe SISU want that part of it re established and would seek a judgement on that. A bit like a criminal signing a confession after a gruelling interogation left him weak and unable to make a wise decision when he signed. The decision to agree can be shown as incompetent by previous owners etc etc...

If I was SISU I'd make the same stand.

No way can CCFC claim they we bullied, harassed or hoodwinked into signing the rental agreement so this just isn't going to wash - they knew what they were doing and SISU knew what they were buying and this agreement was part of that - this is a bullshit bullying tactic on the part of SISU to get a reduction so they can save a few quid of the rent - it's not a reasonable thing for them to be doing and certainly not with our club - I totally appreciate the club doesn't need the ground as it is now but it isn't the fault of ACL - SISU cannot get out of this agreement without letting go of the club and they know it - lets just focus on that for a while

 

[fernandopartridge]

Ultimately, SISU knew the rent when they bought the club. And they also claimed that they were going to buy the stadium as soon as they bought the club, making the rent irrelevant. They have nobody to blame but themselves for not doing so.

Utter bollocks. The rent is disproportionate for a club in League 1, that is the point.

 

[fernandopartridge]

If Palace had to pay £1.2m to play at Selhurst Park then our rent looks like deal of the century!

I suppose the difference there though is they probably get some of the income streams.

Not really as the 2nd part of the quote is the key bit "before administration"

 

[skyblueman]

Utter bollocks. The rent is disproportionate for a club in League 1, that is the point.

Totally agree the rent is disproportionate for a league 1 club - but it ISN'T the fault of the owners of the ground is it? Why should they reduce it?

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Utter bollocks. The rent is disproportionate for a club in League 1, that is the point.

What division were we in when they bought us? What division did they claim they'd take us to within two seasons, then sell on at a profit? Was it L1? I don't think so!

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Totally agree the rent is disproportionate for a league 1 club - but it ISN'T the fault of the owners of the ground is it? Why should they reduce it?

And SISU are far from innocent. I'll happily go all conspiracy and claim that relegation was all part of their "strip all costs" plan to reduce overheads, including the rent!

 

[fernandopartridge]

Totally agree the rent is disproportionate for a league 1 club - but it ISN'T the fault of the owners of the ground is it? Why should they reduce it?

I'm not saying they should but I believe that is the case that will be argued in Court. Caveat emptor probably applies mind.

However, why should ACL charge an amount that is in excess to the perceived market value?

Why shouldn't the club as the bringer of match day revenue streams such as catering receive a share of such income?

 

[fernandopartridge]

What division were we in when they bought us? What division did they claim they'd take us to within two seasons, then sell on at a profit? Was it L1? I don't think so!

Have you got any relevant points to make? What has a promise to get us promoted got to do with anything?

 

[fernandopartridge]

And SISU are far from innocent. I'll happily go all conspiracy and claim that relegation was all part of their "strip all costs" plan to reduce overheads, including the rent!

Jesus wept.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Have you got any relevant points to make? What has a promise to get us promoted got to do with anything?

It's called context? We were a Championship club that they believed they would take to the Premiership. As such, they accepted the rent. It was fair then in their eyes.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Have you got any relevant points to make? What has a promise to get us promoted got to do with anything?

Oh, and you were talking about the division we are in: how did we get there? You saying SISU are in no way responsible for that?

 

[coundonskyblue]

Not really as the 2nd part of the quote is the key bit "before administration"

So your saying Administration would be a good thing for the club?

It seems to have worked for Palace.

 

[skyblueman]

I'm not saying they should but I believe that is the case that will be argued in Court. Caveat emptor probably applies mind.

However, why should ACL charge an amount that is in excess to the perceived market value?

Why shouldn't the club as the bringer of match day revenue streams such as catering receive a share of such income?

ACL are charging an amount that as been historically agreed as the market value of the facility - I guess that has to based on the stadium itself not the position in the League as a tenant - that's out of their hands.

Totally agree a better way forward is for the club to benefit from other income streams and have argued that it would be worth paying more to get the benefit of these

I guess what's annoying me most about all this is the fact that SISU are resorting to dragging the club through the courts to try and get it reduced - how they are going to put together a reasoned argument for that is beyond me when they are still paying millions a year in wages - I wonder have they gone to some of the more useless and highly paid muppet players we are stuck with and told them they won't pay their contracts? I'd have a lot more respect for them if they did that

 

[coundonskyblue]

ACL are charging an amount that as been historically agreed as the market value of the facility - I guess that has to based on the stadium itself not the position in the League as a tenant - that's out of their hands.

Totally agree a better way forward is for the club to benefit from other income streams and have argued that it would be worth paying more to get the benefit of these

I guess what's annoying me most about all this is the fact that SISU are resorting to dragging the club through the courts to try and get it reduced - how they are going to put together a reasoned argument for that is beyond me when they are still paying millions a year in wages - I wonder have they gone to some of the more useless and highly paid muppet players we are stuck with and told them they won't pay their contracts? I'd have a lot more respect for them if they did that

I agree with that.

I think a fair compromise would be some sort of share of ACL income that is directly linked to CCFC. Catering, Matchday parking etc. That to me is fair.

Just moaning that the rent is too high and not paying is childish. My Electric bill is always too high in my opinion, still got to pay it though.

 

[fernandopartridge]

ACL are charging an amount that as been historically agreed as the market value of the facility - I guess that has to based on the stadium itself not the position in the League as a tenant - that's out of their hands.

Totally agree a better way forward is for the club to benefit from other income streams and have argued that it would be worth paying more to get the benefit of these

I guess what's annoying me most about all this is the fact that SISU are resorting to dragging the club through the courts to try and get it reduced - how they are going to put together a reasoned argument for that is beyond me when they are still paying millions a year in wages - I wonder have they gone to some of the more useless and highly paid muppet players we are stuck with and told them they won't pay their contracts? I'd have a lot more respect for them if they did that

It's funny as I used to work at the organisation that values stadiums, shame I don't now as I'd love to ask how the valuation is arrived at.

I agree with your final point - the cost of going through the courts does nobody favours and makes further negotiation between the parties even more difficult.

As for the players and their wages, they for me are the number 1 reason we're in this mess, across the board they get paid way way too much.

 

[CJparker]

The fact is that SISU bought into CCFC with their eyes wide open, and that includes the Ricoh rent. It's SISU's responsibility that we are in L1 not the Premier League, so why should the council and it's rate payers pay the price for SISU's ineptitude , in the form of reduced rental payments? It's not the council's fault we got relegated - SISU can't just stop paying the rent because they think it's too much.

In court I very much doubt they will have a leg to stand on, unless they can find some kind of loophole or technicality to get the council off their backs. Unfortunately, they will go for a game of brinkmanship, daring the council to evict us or close us down (which they won't do) - despite being in the wrong, SISU have got ACL over a barrel.

 

[skyblueman]

The fact is that SISU bought into CCFC with their eyes wide open, and that includes the Ricoh rent. It's SISU's responsibility that we are in L1 not the Premier League, so why should the council and it's rate payers pay the price for SISU's ineptitude , in the form of reduced rental payments? It's not the council's fault we got relegated - SISU can't just stop paying the rent because they think it's too much.

In court I very much doubt they will have a leg to stand on, unless they can find some kind of loophole or technicality to get the council off their backs. Unfortunately, they will go for a game of brinkmanship, daring the council to evict us or close us down (which they won't do) - despite being in the wrong, SISU have got ACL over a barrel.

I agree with just about all of that but not sure SISU have ACL over a barrel on this - only way out of the rent agreement I can see is for one of the original parties to disappear - remember SISU will be massive losers under administration

 

[oldskyblue58]

Is it a simple rent though............. or is it payment for all the staffed facilities. Compass supply the staff for bars etc to ACL and then ACL supply a staffed facility (excluding stewards i believe) to CCFC. In which case is the true property rent actually £1.2m or something less, and any savings in ownership instead of rent would be offset by an increase in staffing costs

...... just thinking out loud not sure it is the case but maybe, one thing is for sure the whole set up is not straight forward

 

[georgehudson]

OSB please get in touch with the skybluestrust, your opinions, knowledge, & wisdom would be welcomed,
PUSB

 

[pipkin73]

Can't remember who said it and can't be bothered to look back ages ago, but i seem to remember when SISU tried to buy the stadium they were told to go away and invest in the team and also show a viable business plan.
If they have done this, then selling the stadium to them seems closer than before (is this why we have signed so many players).
If they feel they can now buy the stadium having reduced outgoing costs as requested and brought a new (footy team that most people are happy with) then i am sure they will try to buy the arena as cheap as possible, including it's income by lowering the rent for the footy team.
If the rent is higher than the income, they can negotiate a lower price due to now owning a share of the arena.
For the club it could be a work of genious, but if it goes wrong then i think we would be happy to be Pompy, as atleast they own there ground.

 

[Astute]

Pompey don't own their own ground. They own nothing but the players, and they have got rid of them at last Pompey are just a name with fans that support them now, nothing else at all. Certainly is enough reason for us to want the crap about our/the Council's ground sorting out ASAP. We are better off than Pompey by far, but there again not far away from where they are.