Thanks Doncaster (1 Viewer)

[Sub]

To be honest i am sick to the back teeth of the off the field distractions all this will do is end up messing up what so far is a decent season !!! they need to pay some rent that is what it boils down to the fact they have paid no rent is worng.
Is the rent to high? yes, is this ACL and the councils fault? yes!!
Is the fact we are in a lower division with less income ACL or the councils fault ? no!!
Did SISU know what they brought into? Yes !!
Did SISU know if we got relegated through lack of investment there would be less revenew? YES !!
Did SISU try to prevent our relegation ??????
there is blame on both sides here and it needs sorting otherwise this will completely screw up what could be a promotion season with a chance of getting to wembley and some well deserved cheer to the fans who have had nothing but dissapointment and crap for the past 15 years +

 

---

[Sky Blues]

Rovers now get the benefit of the car boot sale there (about £160,000 a year). The other sports clubs pay to use the ground, but the council noted they aren't "paying anything like the true cost of their usage" - i.e. the income doesn't meet the costs. Costs which Rovers have now taken on.

Rovers regain the car parking and perimeter advertising, which they paid the extra for before, but this was already factored in to the loss figure they were taking on.
They might also squeeze more money out of the gym, bars and 5-a-side football facility but the losses they were taking on were after the income from those was factored in. The could stick solar panels on the building. They might get some efficiencies from redundancies.

Will it be enough to cover even half the extra costs? I don't have the foggiest.

My basic point is a football stadium ain't cheap!

 

[Otis]

Otis, it's too high because we're in League One....which is clearly SISU's fault, not ACL's. Why should ACL take a huge revenue hit just because we "can't afford the rent"??
Of course we can afford it, SISU just need to dip into their pockets.

We aren't being fleeced - people seem to conveniently forget the millions that the council poured in, to ensure that we had a home stadium. Now, either the council and its' taxpayers is obliged to give us a free gift of a stadium, or £1.2m a year is a reasonable rent for them to recover their unforseen outlay.

It was too high in the Championship too. Over a million? Reasonable? How on earth are the club supposed to survive? It is not reasonable at all. Would only be reasonable if CCFC had access to to part of the funds coming in for all the other stuff going on at the Ricoh.

It is too high full stop!

 

[oldskyblue58]

Good points well put Sky Blues. As they say the devil is in the detail.

Without someone to support the ccfc financially it will be killed by not controlling its costs and lowering them all substantially (including but not only the rent)

The thing that will kill ACL is the loss of cash flow not primarily the loss of profits. If we knew how they planned or could deal with that then we would have a pointer to the lowest rent they can go to to make a deal/finances work with or without ccfc - but also for both ACL and CCFC

if for example the £400k rent offered is their lowest position you would have to assume that they were able to make £800k cashflow savings to be able to cover a rent reduction from £1.2m. Could they? Can they renegotiate the loan, extend its term etc to reduce annual payments from £1.66m to say below £1m. Can they look at their management structure and make savings there? Does that potential cash saving put ACL in a better position than people think? (all just guess work and musings on my part)

If CCFC decided to leave the stadium, then assuming that ACL had made those cash flow savings they would need to make up £400k income or £1095 per day from other sources - again could they, it doesnt sound a lot really on a daily basis? Would other ACL income sources be affected by CCFC not being there - CCFC have all matchday income bar pies and pints on concourse so acl wont lose a great deal there, the RICOH sponsorship is locked in for 10 years as far as we know is not tied to ccfc, do exhibitors etc go there because of the venue or in part because of CCFC, any matchday costs would be saved if no matchdays?

Is £400k a reasonable rent for CCFC to pay ? Is that value for money? Have CCFC/SISU talked themselves in to a corner where nothing less than a total cost of £170k will do ? Are they prepared to negotiate ? What happens to the club if they do not get their demands met and ACL plan successfully for life with out that income?.

Surely it is best that they all work together for the common good ?

nothing it would seem is straight forward thats for sure

 

[Stevec189]

If there is no football at the stadium it gives them another 18 weekends or so to hold conferences and exhibitions etc so could make that £1000 per day relatively easily....Just a thought. Or a couple of Florance and the Machine type gigs - although proved they can do that without effecting Match days........

But we all know it is not about the rent (as hinted by OSB) don't we.....

PUSB

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Waste of time. Most people on here are ACL and council supporters. They think we should be fleeced and go into administration.

Let me ask you a really, really simple question. Fisher's own figures show we'd still not be a viable club even if rent were free and we received match-day income. So, even if the club gets a deal, what's next to make us 'viable'? As being 'given' shares, and even 'given' free rent seemingly wouldn't do it.

Fisher staes they've invested £41m in 5 years. Free rent and match-day income doesn't make a big enough hole in that. To think that ACL's 'fleecing' is the difference between viability and administration is laughable.

Don't you think your mates at SISU need a plan bigger than their habitual banging of this particular drum? Have you sight of a plan the rest of us are blissfully unaware of?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It may have been sloppy but that is then and this is now so I fail to see what the issue is with now facing up to financial adjustments

Because they've run the club so badly that this rent situation still won't make a bad situation good.

When fans were 'bullied' into handing over shares for free against the promise of a better 'debt free' tomorrow; did they think it would be to a business that couldn't even complete Due Diligence properly, and would saddle the club with an ever-bigger burden of debt five years on; thereafter dragging the club's good name thought the courts to try and make amends for a job they should have got right initially?!?

 

[ashbyjan]

I think if it was simply about the rent a compromise would have been reached weeks if not months ago - the longer this goes on the more obvious it becomes that this is about trying to force ACL into admin and getting stadium for minimal amount - my real worry is that SISU have misjudged the resolve of the Council and Higgs Charity, could the council allow the complex to fall into the hands of a company that is acting in this manor? Their remit for originally backing the failed CCFC scheme was to regenerate the area and create jobs in the north of Cov, this it has done (and more could still be done) and can they put those at risk by allowing a hedge fund to take over the stadium? Who knows what their intention would be but a quick flip of the asset would seem the most obvious. If SISU fail to get the stadium where does leave CCFC? Even with a lower rent the club is still losing millions and for how much longer will Joy continue to fund it? Will they simply liquidate, take what they can through ARVO and walk away? Will they sell for a minimal fee and take a massive loss? SISU are playing a dangerous game with CCFC's future.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

If I believe that the club are doing the right thing does this make me Pro SISU, I hope not

 

[ashbyjan]

If I believe that the club are doing the right thing does this make me Pro SISU, I hope not

Depends what you think the club is doing - if it was simply about getting a lower rent then fine, I think we would all like the club to be paying lower rent and investing on the pitch. Is with holding the rent the right way to go about it? Probably not if long term relations are to be maintained. Is forcing a company owned by the citizens of Coventry and a childrens charity into administration the act of a "Community" club and one that should be applauded, especially as the benefits are unlikely to be in favour of CCFC, then sorry but very much no.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

If I believe that the club are doing the right thing does this make me Pro SISU, I hope not

In what way?

Five years ago; people who'd purchased shares and held them over generations were told they had to give them up for free to a shadowy hedge fund from Mayfair - but with the promise of a debt-free football club that would grow and thrive.

We're now in our lowest league position for two generation, with gates almost half of what they were when SISU came to the ascendancy.

Now SISU are illegally withholding funds against a contract they assumed responsibility for when they bought the club. They want it's value lowered. But even if it were lowered to nothing, yes nothing, the club still isn't viable.

So, what's next? They've had free shares from us, the fans. Now they want a stadium that's almost rent-free from ACL.

Who gives up something next for free to help SISU get something right they appear incapable of managing?

 

[Sick Boy]

When fans were 'bullied' into handing over shares for free against the promise of a better 'debt free' tomorrow; did they think it would be to a business that couldn't even complete Due Diligence properly, and would saddle the club with an ever-bigger burden of debt five years on; thereafter dragging the club's good name thought the courts to try and make amends for a job they should have got right initially?!?

The 'bullying' as you call it came from Ranson & Elliot. I seem to remember Elliot being very excited about the prospect of SISU being in charge of the club.

Retiring chairman Joe Elliott admitted he was delighted to welcome hedge fund Sisu Capital and Ranson to the club.

"This is a very exciting day in the long, proud history of Coventry City Football Club and I am positive that will be reflected in the attendance for Saturday's game against Southampton," said Elliott.

"I am sure that Ray Ranson and Sisu Capital will help drive Coventry City forward into a brand new era for the club.

"I'd like to pay special thanks to Iain Dowie, his management team, the players and all of the staff at Coventry City who have loyally supported the club through such a difficult time."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/coventry_city/7139107.stm

How could the shareholders not have trusted Mr Coventry City? He even visited the shareholders in their own homes to try and persuade them into handing over their shares. Or to put it into your hyperbolic language....

Elliot forced his way into the poor innocent shareholders homes, like a vampire sensing blood, he tore the pieces of paper out of his victim's hands. As the now ex-shareholder looked down at their hands, they could see the imprint of the paper on their hands, afterall, it had been in the family for 500 years.

 

[ashbyjan]

Maybe Elliott was taken in by the SISU and the slick, optimistic presentation that was given to all shareholders as much as the rest of us, lets be honest for the first few months everything looked good but subsequent events have proved anything but. Still hindsight is a wonderful thing

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I'm aware of the individuals, SB; I clearly recall Airhorn Joe being on CWR at the time.

However, and this is a big 'however'; they were agents of SISU. Joe in endorsing their takeover and Ranson in fronting it. However, it's still SISU. Maybe different people fronting it, but some in the background - well, those we can be aware of as we never know who their actual investors are - will still be the same. Ranson was merely the footballing-face for the deal; he wouldn't have completed Due Diligence and ordered they proceed with the deal.

It can't be seen as being Ranson's SISU, and Fisher's SISU. It's SISU.

And I still don't see SISU having a plan for 'the next big thing' after this one is sorted. Even if, in 'sorting' things, they destroy ACL in order to get what they demand this time

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Depends what you think the club is doing - if it was simply about getting a lower rent then fine, I think we would all like the club to be paying lower rent and investing on the pitch. Is with holding the rent the right way to go about it? Probably not if long term relations are to be maintained. Is forcing a company owned by the citizens of Coventry and a childrens charity into administration the act of a "Community" club and one that should be applauded, especially as the benefits are unlikely to be in favour of CCFC, then sorry but very much no.

In ideal world I suppose thats what everyone wants, Lower Rent, Investment on the pitch, Transparency, etc and obviously the rent being with held is not the right away of going about things, but would ACL had lowered the rent if it hadn't of come to this? Don't get me wrong it's lovely that there charitable but they have been bleeding City dry from day one. Now that's something that should have been sorted from day one and the club should of said "The rental agreement fee's are to high and we need to come to a compromise", but ACL have had City for;

1. Beverage sales at the ground for 8 years without CCFC seeing a penny of.
2. a 1.2 Mil rent which is beyond funny for 8 years..
3. Matchday fee's which total around £200,500 a year.

All in all City/SISU have just kissed Goodbye millions of pounds worth to ACL.

With this we could have;

1. Bought players loanee players or players that were made avaliable such as Henderson, Carroll, Cork and soon to be McGoldrick.
2. Invested more in the youth as we no one can deny we have had some promising youngsters come through the system over the last few years.
3. Invested in the current squad to ensure contracts are renewed so that our club isn't seen as to sell key members of the playing squad on the cheap.

I don't defend SISU in anyway or how they have ran the club over their tenure.

But ACL are just as bad as SISU..

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

But ACL are just as bad as SISU..

That my friend, is an absurd claim.

What do you think it would cost to build The Ricoh, or any stadium for that matter? £20m? £30m? Just a footballing stadium that is, forget the conferencing and casino et al.

How much would mortgage cost on that value, over, say a 30-year term? Allowing for interest, somewhere between £1m and £1.5m per annum, maybe?

Who should build a stadium for the football club, watched by less than 5% of the city's population, out of benevolence?

ACL's 'rent' appears high, compared to many of our peers. That's agreed. But there's some science behind the figures.

And moreover, tha rental - even acknowledging it's high compared to that our peers pay - is only the profound issue it's now been magnified to, given our relegation to the third tier of English football. And that issue certainly isn't of ACL's making

 

[oldskyblue58]

1. Beverage sales at the ground for 8 years without CCFC seeing a penny of. didnt have to pay the cost of providing those sales either The sales & costs actually form part of the Compass joint venture and is not direct income to ACL. I think the value of the net effect of those sales is overstated by a lot of people
2. a 1.2 Mil rent which is beyond funny for 8 years.. it isnt very funny that it wasnt challenged from the start either it didnt have to be the way it has been. Did you expect ACL to say oh hang on its too high we will take less?
3. Matchday fee's which total around £200,500 a year. total misnomer because if they were not paid to ACL they would be paid to someone else - its the costs of energy, wages in hospitality,directors bar bills, insurance, health and safety you know the normal day to day things that every club pays.

All in all City/SISU have just kissed Goodbye millions of pounds worth to ACL. who with their stakeholders dug the club out of a very deep hole in providing a ground in the first place. IF CCFC really wanted the other income streams they always had the opportunity to purchase the rights to them. IF they thought the costs too high they could and should have done something about it a long time ago

.

I also doubt that any savings would have found their way on to the pitch. Much more likely given the problems agreeing a budget every year that it would have meant less put in the pot by SISU

No one comes out with much credit but ......... poor hard done by club and SISU ? really ?

 

[ashbyjan]

In ideal world I suppose thats what everyone wants, Lower Rent, Investment on the pitch, Transparency, etc and obviously the rent being with held is not the right away of going about things, but would ACL had lowered the rent if it hadn't of come to this? Don't get me wrong it's lovely that there charitable but they have been bleeding City dry from day one. Now that's something that should have been sorted from day one and the club should of said "The rental agreement fee's are to high and we need to come to a compromise", but ACL have had City for;

1. Beverage sales at the ground for 8 years without CCFC seeing a penny of.
2. a 1.2 Mil rent which is beyond funny for 8 years..
3. Matchday fee's which total around £200,500 a year.

All in all City/SISU have just kissed Goodbye millions of pounds worth to ACL.

With this we could have;

1. Bought players loanee players or players that were made avaliable such as Henderson, Carroll, Cork and soon to be McGoldrick.
2. Invested more in the youth as we no one can deny we have had some promising youngsters come through the system over the last few years.
3. Invested in the current squad to ensure contracts are renewed so that our club isn't seen as to sell key members of the playing squad on the cheap.

I don't defend SISU in anyway or how they have ran the club over their tenure.

But ACL are just as bad as SISU..

Sorry have to totally disagree with the last line. The rent was set in conjunction with CCFC when the stadium opened, at that time CCFC (through Mike McGinnity) had the option to pay rent based on attendances or a flat fee - surprisingly CCFC got it wrong again. The rent was set at the level it was to cover the mortgage that ACL had to take on because of the (yet again) failure of the club to meet its obligations.

At no time in the 8 years we have been at the Ricoh has the rent ever been mentioned as an issue but suddenly we get relegated (hardly ACL's fault) and it becomes the cornerstone to our survival apparently. Do the club sit down with ACL and have a rational business negotiation? No they simply stop paying the rent. That is not the way to conduct serious business negotiations but even that could be excused if they appeared to be actually willing to come to an arrangement but everytime we appear to be getting close - rent down by 67%, all ACL's pie and pint profit - and suddenly the club?SISU moves goal posts and starts moaning about paying business rates, dragging carefully selected bits of Doncasters agreement into the public domain etc.

To say ACL are as bad as SISU is way way off the mark. Are ACL perfect, hardly, but they have created jobs, put the Ricoh in the top 10 exhibition venues in country, brought prestigious concerts etc to city and as far as I know have never refused to negotiate on the rent - sure Tim Fisher would have been shouting of the stadium roof if that had been the case.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

"

That my friend, is an absurd claim.

What do you think it would cost to build The Ricoh, or any stadium for that matter? £20m? £30m? Just a footballing stadium that is, forget the conferencing and casino et al.

How much would mortgage cost on that value, over, say a 30-year term? Allowing for interest, somewhere between £1m and £1.5m per annum, maybe?"


It's not an absurd claim at all its the truth.

Lets say for arguement sake its 20Mil, are you seriously suggesting that it is better for CCFC who are likely tennants for more than 30 years to pay a rent that is absurdly high then looking to stretch the costs over a longer period of time? I think its obvious that it would be more beneficial for us to extend the term just so that the rent is lower if that means paying a little extra interest so be it..

As SISU are finding there are no alternatives to the Ricoh Arena, which are;

> Well equipped for CCFC's needs.
> With potential for expansion.
> Can hold the current crop of loyal supporters of which the club has plenty.
> Is location wise ideal for fans to travel and mangeable also for the Football club.
> When success comes fans will return but a ground that will hold this capacity.

I think slightly the rent issue probably has added to the problems that have seen the club fall from the position it found itself.

Its to much money for a Premier League Club looking to manage, let alone a championship club with huge debts, no managerial sense and without the funds to help the club move further without releasing/selling assets..

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Sorry; I still don't follow you. Can you see that looking at the cost to build a stadium, and likely repayments against such a stadium, that ACL's figures are actually pretty fair?

The King Power stadium, the old Walkers Stadium, cost £37m to build 10 years ago. That's a better comparison as it ignores the Ricoh's conferencing and casino from which ACL can attract addition revenues which are another debate. Given that's a 10-year old figure, let's round it up to £40m in current terms - which is a modest allowance for compound interest since the building in Leicester finished. So, we can say a stadium like Leicester's would cost some £40m to build.

Let's now assume we won't look at anything so fancy, eh? So, say, £30m; and let's assume a longer term. I think you'd struggle to fund anyone to finance it, and compound interest gets worse the longer the term you're advocating; but let's assume a 50-year mortgage.

So, that's £30m over 50 years. Agreed? What do you think that would cost? My guess - allowing for interest - would be between £1m and £1.3m per annum.

SISU, as you clearly agree, can't find alternative arrangements. The true cost of building something for themselves would be, if you fall-in with the above, at or above the rate ACL have been levying for the last 8 years.

So, as stated, I'm lost as to what you think SISU need or 'deserve'.....

 

[oldskyblue58]

loan calculator http://money.guardian.co.uk/calculator/form/0,,603119,00.html £40m over 50 years at 2.5% interest. Annual payments £1,410,320

if you could find any one to provide such a loan in the first place

(tip you need to put it in as 40,000 then multiply the results by 1000)

 

[RoboCCFC90]

#oldskyblue58

Point 1 - Maybe its not direct income to ACL, but can you not agree with at least the income from this stream would have been a least significant to CCFC, to offer this as part of negotiations after 8 years is wrong..

Point 2 - I am not saying that that ACL should have offered a lesser rent but as I said above before you cropped out that remark was that "The Club should of said, The rental agreement fee's are to high and we need to a compromise". This being together not as single ventures.

Point 3 - This is something again which has come into highlight recently since this situation was brought to the surface, but the club need to pay a solid rent that includes everything, not "Well there's this and then this little charge and then this little more" Managerial sense! Which I have said previously that SISU have lacked.

I am not trying to SISU are hard done by and that's what my original comment is specifying.. I am not defending SISU or there mis-management of our club, but unfrotuntely I do feel that CCFC hard done by look at the talent that has left us, it could have been so different.. Just to add to this it is now being reported that David McGoldrick is close to joining to Ipswich. Another that's got away...

 

[ashbyjan]

Robo the big mistake I believe you are making is assuming that any savings made on rent would have been ploughed into players etc - I tend to beleive any rent savings would simply have lessened the amount SISU have to put into the club to cover the losses and not an extra penny would have gone to the playing side. We haven't paid any rent at all this year (over £1m saved) yet McG has still gone.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Sorry; I still don't follow you. Can you see that looking at the cost to build a stadium, and likely repayments against such a stadium, that ACL's figures are actually pretty fair?

The King Power stadium, the old Walkers Stadium, cost £37m to build 10 years ago. That's a better comparison as it ignores the Ricoh's conferencing and casino from which ACL can attract addition revenues which are another debate. Given that's a 10-year old figure, let's round it up to £40m in current terms - which is a modest allowance for compound interest since the building in Leicester finished. So, we can say a stadium like Leicester's would cost some £40m to build.

Let's now assume we won't look at anything so fancy, eh? So, say, £30m; and let's assume a longer term. I think you'd struggle to fund anyone to finance it, and compound interest gets worse the longer the term you're advocating; but let's assume a 50-year mortgage.

So, that's £30m over 50 years. Agreed? What do you think that would cost? My guess - allowing for interest - would be between £1m and £1.3m per annum.

SISU, as you clearly agree, can't find alternative arrangements. The true cost of building something for themselves would be, if you fall-in with the above, at or above the rate ACL have been levying for the last 8 years.

So, as stated, I'm lost as to what you think SISU need or 'deserve'.....

Pretty Fair..?

I don't think they are..

I am not suggesting SISU need or deserve anything lets me make this very clear for those who are not understanding, my defence is not of SISU it's Coventry City Football Club, a club we all love dearly which is faultering due to a part of mis-management and high fee's with almost no revenue..

If the club was owned by a Dubai Billionare I am sure this would be sorted but as unfortunately SISU are around it and they have a shoe string budget for a club which is failing, at the moment we are a big club in a smaller pond, but if we get promoted can you see us sustaining or pushing on in this current state..

Make that assumption for yourselves..

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I'll permit OSB58 attend the balance of your post, as he's eminently capable of speaking for himself.

As for McGoldrick; he has a salary level and demand. Ipswich can - I assume - achieve this.

We can't - even if we were inclined and able to do do. Don't forget Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. This limits us to a wage cap of 65% of turnover; thereafter an embargo is (again) placed upon us. The lower turnover being a function of relegation; which is another issue ACL can't be held accountable for, and any rental savings (if any) couldn't be used for player wages

 

[oldskyblue58]

#oldskyblue58

Point 1 - Maybe its not direct income to ACL, but can you not agree with at least the income from this stream would have been a least significant to CCFC, to offer this as part of negotiations after 8 years is wrong.. they sold the rights to that income - buy it back at HR they could get approx £1m turnover from hospitality, catering etc that doesnt include the costs of providing it. It isnt wrong to offer it in the negotiations it has always been available CCFC just didnt want to pay for it

Point 2 - I am not saying that that ACL should have offered a lesser rent but as I said above before you cropped out that remark was that "The Club should of said, The rental agreement fee's are to high and we need to a compromise". This being together not as single ventures. my apologies if i misread or misunderstood...... but the clubs owners should have dealt with from the start, there is no real excuse it is the basics of buying any business .... look for cost savings

Point 3 - This is something again which has come into highlight recently since this situation was brought to the surface, but the club need to pay a solid rent that includes everything, not "Well there's this and then this little charge and then this little more" Managerial sense! Which I have said previously that SISU have lacked. agreed but there are not many rental agreements that pick up the variable costs, most levy a service charge and that is what is going on here

I am not trying to SISU are hard done by and that's what my original comment is specifying.. I am not defending SISU or there mis-management of our club, but unfrotuntely I do feel that CCFC hard done by look at the talent that has left us, it could have been so different.. Just to add to this it is now being reported that David McGoldrick is close to joining to Ipswich. Another that's got away...

Isnt it up to CCFC and its owners how they run their business though. Had they chosen to run it differently then there may have been success on the field, bigger crowds, more income and retention of the "star players" The rent is a small part of why we are in the financial thick n smelly it isnt the major reason

That said I dont actually think we are so far apart in what we are saying

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Robo the big mistake I believe you are making is assuming that any savings made on rent would have been ploughed into players etc - I tend to beleive any rent savings would simply have lessened the amount SISU have to put into the club to cover the losses and not an extra penny would have gone to the playing side. We haven't paid any rent at all this year (over £1m saved) yet McG has still gone.

Yes but your belief on that matter is due to the fact you don't trust them, is it not?

Not saying hat I do trust SISU, but any funding that is saved from the rent I do believe and hope that would be used for the club in some capacity.

SISU are not goig to be able to cover there losses.. No matter how much money they save on the rent will do so..

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Pretty Fair..?

I don't think they are..

I am not suggesting SISU need or deserve anything lets me make this very clear for those who are not understanding, my defence is not of SISU it's Coventry City Football Club, a club we all love dearly which is faultering due to a part of mis-management and high fee's with almost no revenue..

If the club was owned by a Dubai Billionare I am sure this would be sorted but as unfortunately SISU are around it and they have a shoe string budget for a club which is failing, at the moment we are a big club in a smaller pond, but if we get promoted can you see us sustaining or pushing on in this current state..

Make that assumption for yourselves..

Aw, come on. I'm trying to be clear in this regard. I've clearly shown you the costs of building and financing a stadium. Can you see that? Do you disagree with it? If so, what bit?

What I have demonstrated is that the actual cost of servicing the finance of building a £30m stadium is in-line with he rent ACL are charging. That's the context of 'fairness' surely?

 

[ashbyjan]

Yes but your belief on that matter is due to the fact you don't trust them, is it not?

Not saying hat I do trust SISU, but any funding that is saved from the rent I do believe and hope that would be used for the club in some capacity.

SISU are not goig to be able to cover there losses.. No matter how much money they save on the rent will do so..

Its not a question of trust but business - SISU want to put as little as possible into the club because it is continually losing money every month. They have put millions in and seen no return and unless they get the stadium and flip it, will never see a return so any way they can reduce their commitment would be grabbed with both hands.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Isnt it up to CCFC and its owners how they run their business though. Had they chosen to run it differently then there may have been success on the field, bigger crowds, more income and retention of the "star players" The rent is a small part of why we are in the financial thick n smelly it isnt the major reason

That said I dont actually think we are so far apart in what we are saying

I agree #oldskyblue58 we aren't far apart but as you rightly said it is up to the owners of CCFC how to run this business and I am not denying for a second that the club has been mis-managed and that SISU should have negotiated the rent issue sooner, for whatever reason thy haven't done it, but they need to do it now, at an all time low we need to make sure we re-shape to re-build and a positive outlook for the future.

I am not saying the rent is the whole reason why the club is in the position is today but its not been helpful at all.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Its not a question of trust but business - SISU want to put as little as possible into the club because it is continually losing money every month. They have put millions in and seen no return and unless they get the stadium and flip it, will never see a return so any way they can reduce their commitment would be grabbed with both hands.

How do you know this? Its your assumption that you feel SISU will use the Ricoh as a means of re-couping money spent, not a fact.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Have got to agree with ashbyjan that savings on rent i do not think will go directly to the pitch as such. What will happen is that the spending on wages will go on as per budget - already said they would spend to the max FFP (fans forum), what will change is that the debt to SISU will not increase because they wont need to fund it. I think it is more smoke and mirrors, there wont be more money as such, it will just come from a different source (the rent reduction). I would bet the amount budgetted for SISU to put in will decrease. TF can confidently say that the club is spending more but at the same time know SISU are funding less

just my opinion of course

 

[Godiva]

Have got to agree with ashbyjan that savings on rent i do not think will go directly to the pitch as such. What will happen is that the spending on wages will go on as per budget - already said they would spend to the max FFP (fans forum), what will change is that the debt to SISU will not increase because they wont need to fund it. I think it is more smoke and mirrors, there wont be more money as such, it will just come from a different source (the rent reduction). I would bet the amount budgetted for SISU to put in will decrease. TF can confidently say that the club is spending more but at the same time know SISU are funding less

just my opinion of course

You almost make it sound as if it's a bad thing.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Aw, come on. I'm trying to be clear in this regard. I've clearly shown you the costs of building and financing a stadium. Can you see that? Do you disagree with it? If so, what bit?

What I have demonstrated is that the actual cost of servicing the finance of building a £30m stadium is in-line with he rent ACL are charging. That's the context of 'fairness' surely?

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..

This surely must see whether the figures total up or not?

 

[oldskyblue58]

You almost make it sound as if it's a bad thing.

not at all ...... the less SISU fund day to day operations the better...... ideally it would be good to have owners that only needed to fund the major purchases .......... but cant see that any time soon.

The point i am making is that it has been implied by TF that it will be additional funding when in fact there is probably nothing additional about it. It is just moving the same pot around a bit