Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Revenues - how much are they worth? (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter Grendel
  • Start date Aug 8, 2014
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Next
First Prev 6 of 8 Next Last

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 9, 2014
  • #176
Grendel said:
Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did
Click to expand...

It makes no difference. Why can't you understand that? Once sold, the future of the selling party becomes immaterial to the validity of the contract of the buyer. ACL have a monopoly. As they bought it. That's it. Please don't embarrass yourself any more with this one
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 9, 2014
  • #177
Grendel said:
I care so answer the question or stop taking the thread off topic
Click to expand...

Thats fresh coming from you.
Taking treads off subject and never answer the bullshit you spout. The
So if we are looking for double standards look no futher .

you seem to know it all enlighten us with your knowleadge?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 9, 2014
  • #178
Grendel said:
I care so answer the question or stop taking the thread off topic
Click to expand...

Does it matter which company sold them when the company who purchased them are still around and not going anywhere? Otium are going to have to buy them it's as simple as that. The distressing has failed spectacularly they better hope that Higgs are still willing to sell. Sisu have fucked up good and proper and it's time you faced up to it as well as them.
 
L

lift tower

Member
  • Aug 9, 2014
  • #179
whatever the revenues are worth surely if the club wanted them that badly it would be cheaper to buy them than build a new stadium?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 9, 2014
  • #180
lift tower said:
whatever the revenues are worth surely if the club wanted them that badly it would be cheaper to buy them than build a new stadium?
Click to expand...

Don't point out the obvious LT. You've got to see the bigger picture. If sisu don't get a return for their investors some posters on here will cry.
 
L

lift tower

Member
  • Aug 9, 2014
  • #181
skybluetony176 said:
Don't point out the obvious LT. You've got to see the bigger picture. If sisu don't get a return for their investors some posters on here will cry.
Click to expand...

As an outsider looking in (albeit one with a slightly skewed take on it, Northampton fan with a Coventry born and supporting mrs who would prefer to visit the ricoh every other boxing day than watch telly at the inlaws) it seems to me like Joy has got you lot arguing amongst yourselves over the most demented things. I honestly dont think anyone, including Fisher and Labovitch, believes the shite they are coming out with about revenues etc, its just a script. The only two people that are happy with the sixfields rent arrangement appear to be Cardoza and Joy and the fact that she wont show her face in public to me says it all.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #182
lift tower said:
As an outsider looking in (albeit one with a slightly skewed take on it, Northampton fan with a Coventry born and supporting mrs who would prefer to visit the ricoh every other boxing day than watch telly at the inlaws) it seems to me like Joy has got you lot arguing amongst yourselves over the most demented things. I honestly dont think anyone, including Fisher and Labovitch, believes the shite they are coming out with about revenues etc, its just a script. The only two people that are happy with the sixfields rent arrangement appear to be Cardoza and Joy and the fact that she wont show her face in public to me says it all.
Click to expand...

Think you've hit the nail on the head.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #183
Grendel said:
Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did
Click to expand...

Shit. So all those games I bought from KSoft need to go back? And all that chocolate from Woolworths?

Fuck me, judging by the absolute irrational bollocks you're having to resort to to continue your ridiculous stance things must be bad for Sisu.

I suppose we can get Robbie Keane back for free too?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #184
shmmeee said:
I suppose we can get Robbie Keane back for free too?
Click to expand...

Be nice if we could. Unfortunately Grendulls Law is just a figment of his imagination.

(Edit) Can you let me have that address for the woolworths returns. I still have some plates left from the first dining set I bought when I left home 20years ago. As its law I better send them back as I'm too pretty to go to prison
 
Last edited: Aug 10, 2014

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #185
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Oh God. Not again. We sold our rights to that stadium management company!!
Click to expand...

Charlton are in complete control of their stadium.

Even is we didn't sell our rights to them we would have only ever had 50% of it.

You're trying to suggest two situations are similar when they are worlds apart.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #186
Ian1779 said:
Charlton are in complete control of their stadium.

Even is we didn't sell our rights to them we would have only ever had 50% of it.

You're trying to suggest two situations are similar when they are worlds apart.
Click to expand...

Did our share not give us 100% of match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues?
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #187
skybluetony176 said:
Did our share not give us 100% of match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues?
Click to expand...

I could simply weep, to be frank.....
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #188
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I could simply weep, to be frank.....
Click to expand...

Now you're making me feel bad MMM
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #189
skybluetony176 said:
Did our share not give us 100% of match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues?
Click to expand...

Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #190
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving
Click to expand...

Shocking isn't it. You can see why none off these brainiacs have six figure salaries doing multi million pound deals on the telephone
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #191
Ha heard now...
So a company sold their rights, then went bankrupt.
So the new owners who paid for these rights should now be forced to sell them on to the company who gained access to the rest of the business?

But before that could happen the new company in turn went bankrupt?
Changed its name moved its business away and now should also be given back all rights so it has more to sell when bankruptcy comes around again,
Phew correct me if I'm wrong.
So we are saying is that before you buy a struggling business check that you are getting everything you need to make it successful
Lets put it this way.
I was forced to sell my shares should I now get them back as the company I sold them to no longer exists.
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving
Click to expand...
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #192
letsallsingtogether said:
Lets put it this way.
I was forced to sell my shares should I now get them back as the company I sold them to no longer exists.
Click to expand...

I take it you mean your shares in the club that SISU said you could trust them with? Sure, why not. It's Grendulls law. You and everyone else.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #193
Grendel said:
Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did
Click to expand...

I sold a car to my mate. He has now hit hard times and is selling that car. Cheeky sod won't give it to me for nothing, it was mine after all.

At times Grendel you sound like Tim Fisher.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #194
Just like to remind everyone that Otium stole our club and should never have been given the Golden Share.

They never proved they were the club against the mountain of evidence they weren't.

To me that was the day we were cheated out of our club by the FL and it doesn't get mentioned enough on here.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #195
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.

The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.

The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;

- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement

- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns

ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.

The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.

This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #196
Hobo said:
I sold a car to my mate. He has now hit hard times and is selling that car. Cheeky sod won't give it to me for nothing, it was mine after all.

At times Grendel you sound like Tim Fisher.
Click to expand...

That is truly the worst analogy I have ever seen posted on here.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #197
Grendel said:
That is truly the worst analogy I have ever seen posted on here.
Click to expand...

At least it's not Hitler buying a Volkswagen...
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #198
Grendel said:
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.

The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.

The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;

- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement

- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns

ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.

The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.

This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.
Click to expand...

Lol lmfao !!!
How will the existing catering company profit if it hands all revenue over to Sisu ?
How much of this extra revenue will be spent on the team when the club have to make 1.8 million profit every year just to pay Arvo their interest ?
To pay this 1.8 million alone CCFC would require probably about 6 million of yearly turnover based on a 30% profit margin !
Why do you always support Sisu's actions and so insistent that a hedge fund should profit after what they have done to our club ??
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #199
Grendel said:
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.

The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.

The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;

- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement

- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns

ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.

The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.

This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.
Click to expand...

All of this is based on some unproven belief that Sisu's timescales has anything to do with the football club.

The Ricoh isn't for us G. It's for Sisu to sell the land on for development. What happens to us is immaterial.

We're as likely to be left with no ground paying rent to a new owner of the Ricoh and paying off Sisus debt as we are to be sold as a package with the ground.
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #200
Grendel said:
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.

The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.

The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;

- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement

- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns

ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.

The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.

This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.
Click to expand...

they are building a new stadium, we will get the revenues.

Its coming grendal, they will get the revenues and have said various times in the past they will fund the short term losses.

Dont know why you are worried about ACL having "business stability" In 2 - 4 years we will be in the new stadium and ACL will have to fend for themselves.
 
Last edited: Aug 10, 2014
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #201
ccfcway said:
they are building a new stadium, we will get the revenues.

Its coming grendal, they will get the revenues and have said various times in the past they will fund the short term losses.

Dont know why you are worried about ACL having "business stability" In 2 - 4 years we will be in the new stadium and ACL will have to fend for themselves.
Click to expand...

It is undortunately true. SISU maintain a new ground is Plan A.

Therefore, we should be campaigning for ACL to talk to SISU and arrange a short term deal. Doesn't have to extort the club, but nor does it have to be perfect.

That said, we have to actually campaign for them to talk to them, not to say it's understandable that they don't...
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #202
According to the laws of insanity that prevail in here, the Pheonix Four, who aquired the assets of Rover; should be able to reclaim all the rights and designs to the Mini name from BMW. The contractual relationships seem to mirror ours totally. Rights sold. Selling entity no longer in existence.

So, we're building Minis back at Longbridge, right?
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #203
shmmeee said:
All of this is based on some unproven belief that Sisu's timescales has anything to do with the football club.

The Ricoh isn't for us G. It's for Sisu to sell the land on for development. What happens to us is immaterial.

We're as likely to be left with no ground paying rent to a new owner of the Ricoh and paying off Sisus debt as we are to be sold as a package with the ground.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is the nub of the situation, SISU & Joy can't be trusted not to screw up the club even more even if they get something back when they sell.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #204
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving
Click to expand...

skybluetony176 said:
Shocking isn't it. You can see why none off these brainiacs have six figure salaries doing multi million pound deals on the telephone
Click to expand...

TBF, if they can convince anyone to behave like that then I can see why they are well paid.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #205
Grendel said:
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.
Click to expand...

The clear fact you state is only SISU's preferred option, it doesn't make it the only option. If they don't get given the match day revenues for free or at a cheap price (and I do hope they can come to an agreement over these), then I don't think they can carry on for a great length of time funding the club, eventually any investor will decide enough is enough.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #206
This is all a red herring, anyway, according to the information given to the SBT in 2013; Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903. That on an average crowd of 13,236. What's is worth now that the club has been run into the ground?

It's an easy emotional one for people to get worked up about. Like the 'average League One rent'. Surely the club deserves the pie money on match days. Seems right doesn't it?

But it ignores the fact the club sold those rights, it ignores the fact that the real net worth is lower than is being wasted on legal fees and the Sixfield farce and it proves there's another agenda here - freehold, freehold, freehold.

Thing is, if SISU simply declare that, it's not so easy to keep the blind, ignorant and ill-informed hanging onto their every word; and blindly defending it against all reason....
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #207
Deleted member 5849 said:
It is undortunately true. SISU maintain a new ground is Plan A.

Therefore, we should be campaigning for ACL to talk to SISU and arrange a short term deal. Doesn't have to extort the club, but nor does it have to be perfect.

That said, we have to actually campaign for them to talk to them, not to say it's understandable that they don't...
Click to expand...

The problem with that being that in order for that to work, you have to believe that SISU have any plans to build a new stadium. What evidence can you supply that shows they're doing anything other than smokescreening in that regard?

How can you deal with a party who's medium term solution seems to be nothing but a work of fantasy?
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #208
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The problem with that being that in order for that to work, you have to believe that SISU have any plans to build a new stadium. What evidence can you supply that shows they're doing anything other than smokescreening in that regard?
Click to expand...

Why do I need evidence to arrange a short term rent deal?

Surely what I suggest is what you *want* which is ACL hanging on to their rightful revenue streams rather than hand them over, and is me showing I'm not blind, ignorant and ill-informed by playing the narrative that sees a resolution?

Why on earth wouldn't anybody push for a resolution, when the resolution is made *more* likely by the SISU narrative?
 
Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #209
Deleted member 5849 said:
Why do I need evidence to arrange a short term rent deal?

Surely what I suggest is what you *want* which is ACL hanging on to their rightful revenue streams, and is me showing I'm not blind, ignorant and ill-informed by playing the narrative that sees a resolution?

Why on earth wouldn't anybody push for a resolution, when the resolution is made *more* likely by the SISU narrative?
Click to expand...

But it's a short term rent deal based on a next phase that - all evidence suggests - isn't happening. How is that good for the club in any way? And given SISU know there is 'no new stadium', they're unlikely to enter negotiations when they know the knight in shining armour hasn't got a horse. Never will have and was never going to
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
  • Aug 10, 2014
  • #210
Deleted member 5849 said:
Why do I need evidence to arrange a short term rent deal?

Surely what I suggest is what you *want* which is ACL hanging on to their rightful revenue streams, and is me showing I'm not blind, ignorant and ill-informed by playing the narrative that sees a resolution?

Why on earth wouldn't anybody push for a resolution, when the resolution is made *more* likely by the SISU narrative?
Click to expand...

I think you will find Sisu have set their stall out for another season at sixfields and the last thing they would want is a short term rental at the Ricoh.
As you said in your other post it depends if Acl want the club back.
I should imagine Acl do want the club back but are not prepared to be pissed about by Sisu. I can fully understand this.
Most companies I have worked for if you don't want to deal with someone or the job is a pain you put your price up. So if you get the work at least your compensated profit wise. I feel this will probably be the case with Acl. What incentive have Acl got to take CCFC back ?
 
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Next
First Prev 6 of 8 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?