SCG Minutes (1 Viewer)

[Nick]

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...y-league-one-3104698.aspx#w4mjFdV1CRtGJZ1U.99

A couple of interesting points:

8) The Alan Higgs swimming-pool development. How would this affect the Academy?

CA looking to extend the lease at the Alan Higgs Centre beyond June 2017, but is also looking elsewhere. The club is very concerned about this. Coventry Sports Foundation will likely favour Wasps over the club’s academy.

Interesting how it is thought Wasps are going to be to do with the 50m pool

The Family Zone is included in sponsorship package proposals. There is talk of a fan zone in the Jaguar Hall.

Good news!

The playing budget, which includes player salaries, appearances and bonuses, loan players where applicable, hotel expenses etc, but which excludes management and coaching staff wages and expenses, will remain at roughly the same levels for 2016/17. The playing budget is less than, for instance, Sheffield United, Millwall and Wigan – around or in excess of £4Mio but more than, for instance, Burton, Walsall and Gillingham – all around £1.5Mio.

Interesting we were higher than those 3.

Overall, we work on 58 projects with 17,336 participants all under the brand of CCFC and ensure the club is seen in a good light.
[FONT=Ubuntu, Arial, sans-serif][[/FONT]/QUOTE]

That's a lot of stuff in the community, should get more exposure!

Ticket booking fee will be £1, so not bad!

 

---

[stupot07]

Anderson was in the phone ind, Friday night (around 25 mins in), only caught thr last couple of minutes but he mentioned that they have told highs they want to stay long term, he was also very non committal about the stadium situation.

Edit link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03rhqpq

From 15:50
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Brylowes]

Anderson was in the phone ind, Friday night (around 25 mins in), only caught thr last couple of minutes but he mentioned that they have told highs they want to stay long term, he was also very non committal about the stadium situation.

Edit link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03rhqpq

From 15:50
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

According to Anderson, the club is thriving.

Not a word I would associate 'Coventry City' with.

 

[Captain Dart]

Very much like the proverbial curates egg.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

So ticket prices increased but playing budget remains the same

 

[Nick]

So ticket prices increased but playing budget remains the same 

In other words, the increase in attendance (volume) - while great for filling the stands and creating a wonderful atmosphere - has not completely made up for the drop in price, as had been hoped for, and we have missed important financial targets. This has made it more difficult to compete financially in the league than anticipated. While the drop in prices was popular - maybe too popular - we simply can't sustain it in light of the fact that 45% of our revenues come from ticket sales and if we wish to field a competitive team.

 

[skybluebeduff]

What about player sales? where is that money going?

He should of expanded what he meant on financial targets too, who's targets are they?

 

[dongonzalos]

Wasn't it that the projection of how many fans that was required to make it work was wrong in the first place (11k.)
You need to get a balance as that increase in crowd can actually be worth points and league positions as Bradford have found. Which is then worth money. It's not just a it's 'nice' to have more people there. However the money has to come from somewhere and if the owner doesn't want to subsidise that can be tricky.
In an ideal world for me the owners look at this opportunity we have with TM. He clearly knows what he is doing, risk an extra 1 million on the player budget. For the summer when TM has the pick of the best options.
Risk another million on those ticket prices get it as low as possible. So when TM starts working his magic the crowds boom.
However the decision is the club funds itself so that will not be the case.
I know some will not want the owners to put in a bit extra but I am not talking crazy amounts. Just enough to really take advantage of the TM time here.

 

[dongonzalos]

On a seperate note the SCG have finally raised an issue that I am concerned about transport to the Ricoh. It's terrible how can nobody make any money out of this
It is truly awful. Well done for raising it.
The Higgs centre is also of grave concern
Maybe if we get on with CA negotiations with Wasps compromises can be found.
I have genuinely enjoyed the emphasis on youth this year

 

[dongonzalos]

What about player sales? where is that money going?

He should of expanded what he meant on financial targets too, who's targets are they?

Club pays for itself = Joy
Not having to put in crisis loans to cover the gap, then selling players on the last minute if the window to cover that loan.

 

[oldskyblue58]

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...y-league-one-3104698.aspx#w4mjFdV1CRtGJZ1U.99

A couple of interesting points:



Interesting how it is thought Wasps are going to be to do with the 50m pool is it a comment on the pool or the use of the site in general?



Good news!



Interesting we were higher than those 3. would have to ask who got better value for money wouldn't you. For example in 2015 our total wages were 5.2m Walsall's was 3.1m CCFC total number of employees 414 (105 players & management) Walsall 131 (81 players & management)

Overall, we work on 58 projects with 17,336 participants all under the brand of CCFC and ensure the club is seen in a good light.
[FONT=Ubuntu, Arial, sans-serif][[/FONT]/QUOTE]

That's a lot of stuff in the community, should get more exposure! It should and it would be good to see the club help better finance this and JSB more it is the future and the connection to the city

Ticket booking fee will be £1, so not bad!

per ticket - do we know what match day tickets are going to be

Very thorough minutes because of the SBT, SBITC & safety officer briefings but as always not much tangible news on the important things and still some contradictions.

 

[oucho]

I know that some of the bigger PL clubs have swimming pools for general fitness conditioning etc, so assume Wasps will take the same approach. It's commonly used by players as low-impact fitness training when they're coming back from long-term injuries.

 

[Grendel]

I know that some of the bigger PL clubs have swimming pools for general fitness conditioning etc, so assume Wasps will take the same approach. It's commonly used by players as low-impact fitness training when they're coming back from long-term injuries.

Sounds about right. Use taxpayer money to build a pool for wasps.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Wont know until 2016 figures published but something doesn't feel right to me about what is said on the budget and missing financial targets. Gut feeling but ........

Crowds went up 35% assuming the same sales mix then that should mean the average ticket price could drop 25% and still get the same ticket income because of the increase in attendances. Roughly takes it down from £8 per head per match to £6. How much did ST and match ticket prices drop?

Also as we are apparently self sufficient how does that square with the comments on wages budget. in 2015 (first year back at Ricoh)we spent 110% of turnover on wages and there was still 4.4m to spend on direct costs and admin, let alone interest charges

2015/16 match income is apparently short but we also know that the F&B, Car Park, are shared and that the programme sales & merchandise is franchised out, so depressing incomes also. Savings made on wages I think that is apparent, but how much can admin & direct costs be reduced. Then there is the interest charge. Obviously the sale of Maddison will soften the loss. But wages at £2.5m plus direct costs 1.5m plus admin costs at £2m still leave us losing money before interest charges. That in turn must mean a negative cashflow.

Doesn't make sense to me at the moment. I am sure there is a good explanation but I am yet to be convinced that they gave too much away to hard pressed fans being it. :thinking about:

 

[tisza]

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...y-league-one-3104698.aspx#w4mjFdV1CRtGJZ1U.99

A couple of interesting points:



Interesting how it is thought Wasps are going to be to do with the 50m pool is it a comment on the pool or the use of the site in general?



Good news!



Interesting we were higher than those 3. would have to ask who got better value for money wouldn't you. For example in 2015 our total wages were 5.2m Walsall's was 3.1m CCFC total number of employees 414 (105 players & management) Walsall 131 (81 players & management)

per ticket - do we know what match day tickets are going to be

Very thorough minutes because of the SBT, SBITC & safety officer briefings but as always not much tangible news on the important things and still some contradictions.

how the hell do we end up with over 400 employees? Does this include stewards? Are there any other matchday employees? What's the playing staff around 40/50 including the academy? How do we end up employing nearly 300 people more than Walsall?

 

[chiefdave]

Crowds went up 35% assuming the same sales mix then that should mean the average ticket price could drop 25% and still get the same ticket income because of the increase in attendances. Roughly takes it down from £8 per head per match to £6. How much did ST and match ticket prices drop?

2015/16
Season tickets were £249 and concessions £191. 12-16 was £23 and under 12 was free.
Family zone season tickets were £249 and concessions £191. 12-16 was £23 and under 12 was free.

12 match packages were £156 and concessions £120. Junior £48 / £36.
6 match packages were £78 and concessions £60. Junior £24 / £18.

Match tickets were £20 and concessions £15. Junior was £7, JSB was £5 and JSB under 12 was £2.
Family zone match tickets were £20 and concessions £15. Junior was £6, JSB was £4 and JSB under 12 was £0.

2012/13 (same pricing structure as 2014/15 but a full season)
Standard zone season tickets were £299 and concessions £207. Junior was £138, JSB was £92 and under 7 was £46.
Premium zone season tickets were £345 and concessions £253. Junior was £184, JSB was £115 and under 7 was £69.
Family zone season tickets were £253 and concessions £184. Junior was £115, JSB was £69 and under 7 was free.

Standard zone match tickets were £24 and concessions £17. Junior was £13, JSB was £9 and under 7 was £5.
Premium zone match tickets were £27 and concessions £20. Junior was £15, JSB was £10 and under 7 was £6.
Family zone match tickets were £20 and concessions £15. Junior was £11, JSB was £7 and under 7 was free.

 

[chiefdave]

how the hell do we end up with over 400 employees? Does this include stewards? Are there any other matchday employees? What's the playing staff around 40/50 including the academy? How do we end up employing nearly 300 people more than Walsall?

For that amount of difference I reckon something like stewards. Could other clubs put that somewhere apart from staff costs? Maybe if they don't employ them directly?

 

[oucho]

Sounds about right. Use taxpayer money to build a pool for wasps.

Just like taxpayer's money was spend on building the Ricoh when the club needed a lender of last resort, only for Sisu to renege unilaterally and shamefully when they had what they wanted and paying the council back no longer suited them?

 

[Nick]

Anyway, on topic about SCG!

 

[oldskyblue58]

the employee numbers included stewards for CCFC - those are not split for Walsall

I think the more important employee number is it took CCFC 24 more players & management to achieve failure.

base figures

2012/13 total attendance 251848 match day income £2,996,143
2014/15 total attendance 214633 match day income £1,797,352
2015/16 total attendance 289,119 match day income details not available yet

It was suggested I think that prices were 25% cheaper in 2015/16 than 2014/15 so using that and the attendance figure would give estimated match day income at £1,816,000 - about the same as 2014/15 in round terms (289119/214633 x 1797352 x75%)

If as seems the prices for 2016/17 are similar to 2012/13 (or at least more in line with that year) that would give a match day income budget heading towards 3.4m. quite a sizeable increase of 1.6m
(289,119/251848 x 2996143)

All guess work of course

It is hard nosed exploitation of the fan base made harsher because of the discounting of tickets 2015/16. The club of course does need the money to compete. But then Walsall ended up 3rd with apparently £1m less wage budget. Such is football and football finance :thinking about:

 

[Nick]

It is hard nosed exploitation of the fan base made harsher because of the discounting of tickets 2015/16. The club of course does need the money to compete. But then Walsall ended up 3rd with apparently £1m less wage budget. Such is football and football finance :thinking about:

That sounds a bit extreme, aren't we still going to be up amongst the cheapest in the league for season tickets?

If the estimates are correct, Conor Thomas may have made up 1/3 of that £1m difference...

 

[oldskyblue58]

didn't say there was anything wrong with being hard nosed in business. Ask Man Utd if they worry about exploiting their fan base. If that means that the finances work properly then so be it. But exploiting the resource is what is going on, and it is an easy one to pick on

Not sure where we will be in terms of cheapest or not. To a degree I don't really care.

I do care that if the price has gone up significantly that the extra money is spent well and that if the owners/directors say the club is self sustaining and that's the only way, that they actually stick to the budgets, stay at least cash flow neutral, have control and a plan - then communicate it properly to their most important resource or asset, the fans. So far they still have a long way to go before convincing me of that

 

[fernandopartridge]

Just like taxpayer's money was spend on building the Ricoh when the club needed a lender of last resort, only for Sisu to renege unilaterally and shamefully when they had what they wanted and paying the council back no longer suited them?

What drivel. SISU / CCFC had a rental agreement. The club itself didn't lend any money from the council. The council took on the stadium project as their own venture, taking the freehold of the land and issuing a 50 year lease to the company that became ACL. The council had a 50/50 share in ACL with CCFC. Then CCFC's directors at the time (not SISU) sold their share in the company to the Higgs Charity. CCFC subsequently agreed to rent the stadium at circa £1.3m per annum.

If it was 'paying the council back' for their just under £10m investment, they had done that by 2013.

 

[lordsummerisle]

What drivel. SISU / CCFC had a rental agreement. The club itself didn't lend any money from the council. The council took on the stadium project as their own venture, taking the freehold of the land and issuing a 50 year lease to the company that became ACL. The council had a 50/50 share in ACL with CCFC. Then CCFC's directors at the time (not SISU) sold their share in the company to the Higgs Charity. CCFC subsequently agreed to rent the stadium at circa £1.3m per annum.

If it was 'paying the council back' for their just under £10m investment, they had done that by 2013.

Don't confuse him with facts, you were confusing the rugger buggers on the Guardian site yesterday with that.

 

[Nick]

didn't say there was anything wrong with being hard nosed in business. Ask Man Utd if they worry about exploiting their fan base. If that means that the finances work properly then so be it. But exploiting the resource is what is going on, and it is an easy one to pick on

Not sure where we will be in terms of cheapest or not. To a degree I don't really care.

I do care that if the price has gone up significantly that the extra money is spent well and that if the owners/directors say the club is self sustaining and that's the only way, that they actually stick to the budgets, stay at least cash flow neutral, have control and a plan - then communicate it properly to their most important resource or asset, the fans. So far they still have a long way to go before convincing me of that

Hopefully it will help tm, will soon find out I guess!

 

[Captain Dart]

What drivel. SISU / CCFC had a rental agreement. The club itself didn't lend any money from the council. The council took on the stadium project as their own venture, taking the freehold of the land and issuing a 50 year lease to the company that became ACL. The council had a 50/50 share in ACL with CCFC. Then CCFC's directors at the time (not SISU) sold their share in the company to the Higgs Charity. CCFC subsequently agreed to rent the stadium at circa £1.3m per annum.

If it was 'paying the council back' for their just under £10m investment, they had done that by 2013.

Big mistake, should have let CCFC sort out the mess by itself (it couldn't have done so of course & would have plunged the club into administration, which would probably have worked out better than the present outcome).

 

[oucho]

What drivel. SISU / CCFC had a rental agreement. The club itself didn't lend any money from the council. The council took on the stadium project as their own venture, taking the freehold of the land and issuing a 50 year lease to the company that became ACL. The council had a 50/50 share in ACL with CCFC. Then CCFC's directors at the time (not SISU) sold their share in the company to the Higgs Charity. CCFC subsequently agreed to rent the stadium at circa £1.3m per annum.

If it was 'paying the council back' for their just under £10m investment, they had done that by 2013.

Check your own drivel. If the council hadn't taken the project over, where would the club be playing? £10m - try £30m. It never suited the club to pay the rent once the stadium was built - the way the lease was ripped up as the club continued to trade was unforgivable.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

So ticket prices increased but playing budget remains the same 

They will give you the line that they fucked up the budget this year so the increase in ticket revenue will make up for the shortfall. Bullshit if you ask me.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Check your own drivel. If the council hadn't taken the project over, where would the club be playing? £10m - try £30m. It never suited the club to pay the rent once the stadium was built - the way the lease was ripped up as the club continued to trade was unforgivable.

£10m try £30m

I'll try the figures from the council's own document which shows a net investment of £10m:

http://democraticservices.coventry....08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf

They went on to borrow £21m (fully repaid through ACL's YB loan) and £14.4m (now repaid less full term interest by ACL).

If the council hadn't taken the project over, where would the club be playing?

The club would be playing at HR most likely, as the option to play there was never closed and apparently a buy-back option was available. The stadium development was pushed forward in the council's wider regeneration interests as much as anything else. I also would suspect that they liked the idea of providing more housing in an inner city area i.e. on the site of Highfield Rd.

The council would not have been able to 'loan money to the club' to construct the stadium anyway, as it would contravene State Aid rules. The council isn't a lender of last resort either, that would be the Bank of England.

 

[wingy]

Some of the figures I'm seeing here suggest Sisu's and Joys published commitment to fund /Cover the shortfalls due to our sojourn to Sixfields were very light @ circa £600K published -£1M from on here.
The discounting to grow the fanbase last year was hopefully injected to cover it.