Any news from SCG? Wasnt it last night?/
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Thanks, I couldn't remember.I think it is tonight?
SCG was last night and to be honest nothing came out that we didn't already know. Both CRFC and CCFC stated that they were a bit caught out that the news of any talks had leaked out as they were at a very early discussion stage - and discussions is all it is. There is no fixed capacity on the initial phase but figures of 15-18k were bandied about with option to expand to 25k if needed in a similar way to MK had done. All admitted that site would be tight but not too tight to make it unviable. Transport was an issue but using examples like St Marys with park and ride schemes etc that too was seen as not insurmountable. Where the money for all this was coming from was brushed aside by Fisher with claims of substantial grants etc that a multi sports venture like this would attract and other capital into a separate property company. When pressed he just claimed it wasn't an issue and the important part was access to 100% of match day revenues - something that they couldn't get at Ricoh due to Wasps financial model simply not allowing it. Overall the mood from both parties was one of very cautious optimism but stressing that it was all very early stages in any process, it was a fact finding exploration of a possibility and that there were no concrete plans or contracts.
With respect to Wasps CA stated that they have had talks but due to the way Wasps business model is constructed it was very difficult for them to give the club what it needs. This he stated was not due to intransigence or vindictiveness from Wasps but simply a business reality - the Compass deal means that out of every £1.00 70p goes straight to the Compass joint venture company leaving 30p which is split 50/50 meaning that for every £1 spent by a City fan the club only gets 15p. This gave the club £72k last year - which to be brutal is £72k for no outlay or cost so it almosts covers our rent! He syas they are still trying to negotiate but it is very difficult - whilst we may like to believe we are a big fish if you look at the facts £100k rent, £400k food and beverage (before costs etc) bit of parking revenue - in the greater scheme of things (unpalatable as it may seem) it would appear that Wasps could survive without us so CA not in a great bargaining position. Is the BPA a bluff to put pressure on Wasps to do a deal? Is it a sop to fob off the Football League to show we are doing something about a permanent ground? At this moment in time I am personally prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are serious about it and if it makes financial sense, will fit on the site, logistical obstacles can be overcome then having a smaller city centre based ground would be great. However the biggest obstacle I forsee is that to make such a complex scheme really work it would need wholehearted council support and the relationship between the parties is not good to say the least and not sure if a simple leadership change is enough to alter this. For the time being I am happy to keep an open mind about it.
SCG was last night and to be honest nothing came out that we didn't already know. Both CRFC and CCFC stated that they were a bit caught out that the news of any talks had leaked out as they were at a very early discussion stage - and discussions is all it is.
With respect to Wasps CA stated that they have had talks but due to the way Wasps business model is constructed it was very difficult for them to give the club what it needs. This he stated was not due to intransigence or vindictiveness from Wasps but simply a business reality - the Compass deal means that out of every £1.00 70p goes straight to the Compass joint venture company leaving 30p which is split 50/50 meaning that for every £1 spent by a City fan the club only gets 15p. This gave the club £72k last year - which to be brutal is £72k for no outlay or cost so it almosts covers our rent.
Thanks again Jan. Did anybody mention anything about the naming rights at the Ricoh? Could the club not do something along the lines of what West Ham are doing at the Olympic stadium? i.e. West ham raise the profile therefore making the sponsorship more attractive and then take a cut of the naming rights because of this? Not so disimular from us being at the Ricoh although obviously on a smaller scale.
Tony - naming rights were mentioned by CA as being a major source of revenue to clubs these days. He said something along the lines of Wasps/ACL not willing to give up any share of this important revenue stream for nothing. Why some feel they should simply hand us free money because we are CCFC is a bit myopic and unrealistic. As a third division football team that isn't committed to staying beyond 2 years do we really have much of a claim? Do we really raise the profile of the stadium that much? Maybe SISU by their constant court actions have got the name into the public domain more and maybe Joy deserves a share too (Damn it - I see a legal claim winging its way to ACL as we speak!!) There was no mention how a naming rights split would work at the BPA.
Did you miss the bit where Wasps don't want to give us anymore income?
Not only that, Wasps have a bond to pay back and £2M a year in interest too, so they aren't likely to be handing over cash because they're being nice.
Finally an unhappy thought CCFC probably contribute less than £800k to the Wasps turnover that's less than 3% of the £26m+ they turnover as a combined group per year - take out the costs of supplying that turnover and that's the reason Wasps might like CCFC at the Ricoh but don't actually need CCFC at the Ricoh. Which is why they can play hard ball in any negotiations. A couple of larger events each year and they about cover it should CCFC leave.
No. Did you miss that they were talking specifically about F & B? I'm talking specifically about naming rights.
Thanks, OSB. That's they key really isn't it? We don't generate a great deal anyway, so there's no real incentive going forward to offer us a better deal or more money. If anything they'll want to charge us more.
Which they're unlikely to share with us. What is their incentive to?
Tony - naming rights were mentioned by CA as being a major source of revenue to clubs these days. He said something along the lines of Wasps/ACL not willing to give up any share of this important revenue stream for nothing. Why some feel they should simply hand us free money because we are CCFC is a bit myopic and unrealistic. As a third division football team that isn't committed to staying beyond 2 years do we really have much of a claim? Do we really raise the profile of the stadium that much? Maybe SISU by their constant court actions have got the name into the public domain more and maybe Joy deserves a share too (Damn it - I see a legal claim winging its way to ACL as we speak!!) There was no mention how a naming rights split would work at the BPA.
Also from ccfc perspective, the increased cost of buying access to those revenue streams won't be conterbalanced by the increased income. For example, how much would wasps want to get all 30% of the F&B money? After all because of the compass contract it would only be another £75k.The only incentive they want is in the shape of £'s and CCFC simply don't have that or the backing to provide that
Yes the incomes are charged to the bond but currently those incomes are variable and so giving those away affects the bond security. However were CCFC prepared to pay higher (commercial ?) rent over a set term then it would be regular fixed income that adds security to the bond and the income streams become more negotiable. But that would only happen in a long term deal say 10 or 20 years imo
That said I still think Wasps are refusing to go much further because they have been named in the court action in JR2
I wasn't expecting the club to be given them for nothing. It would be part of any long term rental agreement linked to the duration of the naming rights deal. West Ham are believed to be getting £1M a year from the naming rights at the Olympic Stadium because the coverage West Ham give the stadium has a recognised value. http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/04...amed-mahindra-stadium-part-naming-rights-deal
Whats to stop SISU using the same principle when negotiating with Wasp? Obviously the ammounts are going to be way smaller if for no other reason than West Ham are tied into a 99year rental agreement so the stadium sponsor has security before you even get into that they're a premier league club but is a 10 year rental deal that coencides with a 10 year stadium sponsorship deal that CCFC get's something from by way of reward for the exposure they give the stadium really beyond the rhealms of impossability? I can't see how that wouldn't be in either Wasps or CCFC's interest. Might make stadium sponsorship easier to sell and more valuable with a commitment from the club to stay at the Ricoh for the duration of the sponsorship. And if our on field fortunes carry on improving and we gain promotion to the championship there would be even more exposure and even more again in the premier league (I know I'm dreaming on the last one). I'd say that the club need to think out the box and do things like this to maximise incomes but as West Ham have already set a precident all they have to do is follow that example.
Also from ccfc perspective, the increased cost of buying access to those revenue streams won't be conterbalanced by the increased income. For example, how much would wasps want to get all 30% of the F&B money? After all because of the compass contract it would only be another £75k.
Re: stadium rights, I think that if we were to agree a long term 5-10 year agreement and the naming rights were aligned to that, then we should get a cut of that as even as a third tier club we promote the Ricoh by virtue of playing their.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
How have west ham set a precedent? Aren't they the main tenant at the stadium?
So? It's about exposure, not tenant status. Football is a far higher profile sport than Rugby. The football club brings exposure to the stadium by simply being there, maybe even more as a league 1 football club than Wasps bring as a premiership Rugby club. That brings value to the naming rights. Are you suggesting that the stadium naming rights for the olympic stadium would carry the same value if West Ham wasn't there or if Leyton Orient had have took it on instead? I seriously doubt that.
CCFC adds value to the profile of the Ricoh in the same way as West Ham adds value to the profile of the Olympic stadium all be it on a smaller scale with ourselves. So the precedent that West Ham have set is that if you bring financial value to the naming rights you deserve to benefit from it financialy in some way. A pretty basic principle I'm sure even you can follow.
If we add value, why do they not show they "value" us?
Did I get it wrong but don't we share 50 50 with Wasps once Compass have taken there cut ?Which they're unlikely to share with us. What is their incentive to?
Did I get it wrong but don't we share 50 50 with Wasps once Compass have taken there cut ?
We get 50% of 30%.
True. Deal is still poor for the club though..... and Compass get the 70% because they set the catering up and bought into it ?
Just like we have done with the shop and the programmes.
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?