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?
in all seriousness, surely we could have got SOME income from home friendlies pre season if they Olympis were not on ?
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!!!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Utter bollocks. The rent is disproportionate for a club in League 1, that is the point.
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?
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?
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!
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!
Have you got any relevant points to make? What has a promise to get us promoted got to do with anything?
Have you got any relevant points to make? What has a promise to get us promoted got to do with anything?
Not really as the 2nd part of the quote is the key bit "before administration"
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
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
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.
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?