Thanks Doncaster (1 Viewer)

[torchomatic]

Absolute and complete bollocks. It's not a reasonable rent.

£1.2m a year is a reasonable rent for them to recover their unforseen outlay.

 

---

[torchomatic]

So it's all about morals, is it? OK, I'll just do a quick search for when you, TonyInc, Valiant and all the other ACLites started thread after thread demanding the club paid the money they still owed Southampton for Leon Best. That was morally wrong, wasn't it? Let's see if you got your panties in a twist over that too. Now where's that search box....

After all, being a CCFC supporter apparently requires one to support the club in all circumstances, even when it behaves totally immorally.

 

[torchomatic]

Weird, nothing.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Mary_Mungo I don't disagree with the costs or how you displayed it for me. My point is whether the figures you have demonstrated are right or wrong they are not sustainable for Coventry City Football Club..

Okay - so you now can see that the figure ACL levy bears a relationship for the cost of the build. That's my reference to fairness.

The next point is why do you think someone should build something for a private company, or a profit-making private hedge fund, and then operate it at a loss to the benefit of the tenant?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Okay - so you now can see that the figure ACL levy bears a relationship for the cost of the build. That's my reference to fairness.

The next point is why do you think someone should build something for a private company, or a profit-making private hedge fund, and then operate it at a loss to the benefit of the tenant?

Its not that I see it now.. I saw it when you posted it :facepalm:

But it's not at a loss at all?

Its like renting a house. You want the three bedroom house with two bathrooms, a lounge, a kitchen, etc, but you get given that accomodation under a price which isn't viable for you to repay, obviously you will look at re-negotiating that amount.. That's my point CCFC can't agree the amount with ACL and yeah your figures are very well set out, but a compromise needs to be met for the good of both parties.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

But it's not at a loss at all?

So, you can see that it would cost £1.0 to 1.3m a year to have a stadium £30m built with a 50-year mortgage; yet you think ACL or anyone for that matter should do it and then rent it back to the tenant for a quarter of that value? Which is what SISU are asking for. And you don't think the difference between those figures constitutes a 'loss'?!?

Now, ACL don't have a £30m mortgage, that was by means of an example to show you the 'real would' costs of building a stadium. They have a £21m mortgage. This after they stepped in when the football club faltered last time. Notwithstanding that, the principle remains the same - just redo the maths

 

[RoboCCFC90]

So, you can see that it would cost £1.0 to 1.3m a year to have a stadium £30m built with a 50-year mortgage; yet you think ACL or anyone for that matter should do it and then rent it back to the tenant for a quarter of that value? Which is what SISU are asking for. And you don't think the difference between those figures constitutes a 'loss'?!?

Now, ACL don't have a £30m mortgage, that was by means of an example to show you the 'real would' costs of building a stadium. They have a £21m mortgage. This after they stepped in when the football club faltered last time. Notwithstanding that, the principle remains the same - just redo the maths

Have I said not previously that this maybe achieved over a longer period of time? It needs to sustainable for both parties and right now it isn't end of.

 

[Grendel]

So, you can see that it would cost £1.0 to 1.3m a year to have a stadium £30m built with a 50-year mortgage; yet you think ACL or anyone for that matter should do it and then rent it back to the tenant for a quarter of that value? Which is what SISU are asking for. And you don't think the difference between those figures constitutes a 'loss'?!?

Now, ACL don't have a £30m mortgage, that was by means of an example to show you the 'real would' costs of building a stadium. They have a £21m mortgage. This after. w they stepped in when the football club faltered last time. Notwithstanding that, the principle remains the same - just redo the maths

Oh hold on. I thought that the Ricoh is a goldmine. If Coventry City was not there ACL could make vast profits. They could have concerts every night and rival the NEC as a venue.

Is that now not the case?

Are we just paying their mortgage while they then make profits on other ventures?

Not a fair arrangement is it?

Are you another Sky Blues Trust member by any chance? Chief Communication Office?

What's CJ? The Entertainments manager?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Have I said not previously that this maybe achieved over a longer period of time? It needs to sustainable for both parties and right now it isn't end of.

But how much longer do you want it financing over? 30 years? 50 years? Too short and the capital cost repayments are too steep. Too long and the interest - or anyone to finance it - are an issue.

The reality is that to build a stadium capable of being used in the championship costs a value that's seemingly out-of-kilter with the average rent. The ACL rent - as contractually agreed - is fair from the perspective of building and financing a similar stadium; that I've proven.

So, given the dichotomy between cost and revenue. Who should build a stadium that's attended by less than 5% of a city's population? The club? The council? Another party?

The club couldn't. The council wouldn't. So we have ACL - or anyone else for that matter. But I still can't see why they should get less income than the finance cost of build???

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Oh hold on. I thought that the Ricoh is a goldmine. If Coventry City was not there ACL could make vast profits. They could have concerts every night and rival the NEC as a venue.

Is that now not the case? Are we just paying their mortgage while they then make profits on other ventures? Not a fair arrangement is it? Are you another Sky Blues Trust member by any chance? Chief Communication Office?/QUOTE]

If you're going to try facetious fare, at least read what's gone before; lest you run the risk of looking ill-informed and crass. Instead of rising to the bait, just point me to anywhere where I, or anyone has ever claimed the Ricoh is a goldmine. I guess - rather like when you acclaimed Fisher and Waggot's time at Charlton was a 'great success', and I challenged you to prove it - you'll go all quiet again.

I have, however, proven that to build a stadium like one we're using would cost a value well in excess of the value SISU are saying they're prepared to pay. So, mhy don't you tell me how the arrangement should work?

Moreover, why don't you just tell me, and all the class, how SISU will make a success of CCFC even if the rent was free? 'Cus we'd still be losing money hand over fist

 

[kevinleftpeg]

unfortunately the whole Business model adopted by us & many more Footie Clubs is not sustainable.
As others state, even if rent was free we still spend more than we recoup.
Eventually, those who are owed money will come & ask for it.

Sorry for the simple approach, but that is basically it.

The rot started before SISU arrived & although they are proven to be absolutely useless ( i initially thought they would be good for CCFC-- WRONG!) you actually need to look back to those who now have very deep pockets following the sale of the legendary Highfield Road.

FWIT, my personal view is that SISU must leave as they are now only desperate to recover some of their losses, albeit down to their own failings. Given the chance they will turn us over in a bit way & know every loophole & trick in the book. Hedge funders everyone.

Remember 2008 folks........ that financial thingie that means that we, our kids & then their kids will be bailing us out of for years.

Football is one big fucking financial joke that will come tumbling down.

 

[Grendel]

Oh hold on. I thought that the Ricoh is a goldmine. If Coventry City was not there ACL could make vast profits. They could have concerts every night and rival the NEC as a venue.

Is that now not the case? Are we just paying their mortgage while they then make profits on other ventures? Not a fair arrangement is it? Are you another Sky Blues Trust member by any chance? Chief Communication Office?/QUOTE]

If you're going to try facetious fare, at least read what's gone before; lest you run the risk of looking ill-informed and crass. Instead of rising to the bait, just point me to anywhere where I, or anyone has ever claimed the Ricoh is a goldmine. I guess - rather like when you acclaimed Fisher and Waggot's time at Charlton was a 'great success', and I challenged you to prove it - you'll go all quiet again.

I have, however, proven that to build a stadium like one we're using would cost a value well in excess of the value SISU are saying they're prepared to pay. So, mhy don't you tell me how the arrangement should work?

Moreover, why don't you just tell me, and all the class, how SISU will make a success of CCFC even if the rent was free? 'Cus we'd still be losing money hand over fist

I owe you an apology.

Your role in the Sky Blue Trust is clearly Minister for Propaganda.

 

[ccfcway]

Doncaters Rent is "coventry City Genral Chat", yet, if they sign a former CCFc player to strengthen their position in our league, it isnt !

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Doncaters Rent is "coventry City Genral Chat", yet, if they sign a former CCFc player to strengthen their position in our league, it isnt !

The news on them signing Fowler is 'City Old Boy News'

 

[torchomatic]

And your Pompey thread?

Doncaters Rent is "coventry City Genral Chat", yet, if they sign a former CCFc player to strengthen their position in our league, it isnt !