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.
Waste of time. Most people on here are ACL and council supporters. They think we should be fleeced and go into administration.
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
If I believe that the club are doing the right thing does this make me Pro SISU, I hope not
If I believe that the club are doing the right thing does this make me Pro SISU, I hope not
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?!?
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.
But ACL are just as bad as SISU..
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
.
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..
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..
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'.....
RoboCCFC90;329637Just to add to this it is now being reported that David McGoldrick is close to joining to Ipswich. Another that's got away...[/QUOTE said: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
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...
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.
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..
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..
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
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.
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
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?
You almost make it sound as if it's a bad thing.
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?