Tim Fisher on Shane Oconnor 15 02 13 (7 Viewers)

[grego_gee]

Why do people bang on about match day revenue streams ?
It is hardly going to make much difference !!!
we have a figure of food of 100k and then car parking which is not going to be millions !!
Its all a smoke screen to hide Sisu's deficiences and try and blame others for mistakes they have made !!!!

The football league Financial fair play rules (which are still evolving) limit what we can spend on players wages to a direct percentage of what the club receives in football match day revenues!
The matchday food revenues for instance might equate to 3 or 4 players salaries. but only if they go into CCFC coffers. Car parking might be another 3 or 4 players.
It is probably fair to say this impact on the playing budget has only become apparent in recent months.
e.g. comparing us to a team that does have the benefit of those revenues and we as now didn't, they would have a bigger budget to spend on players than we would. - also because they had a bigger playing salary budget they would be viewed as a better prospect by any manager they were trying to recruit.
Its not a question of having the money - its an FL limit on how much a club is allowed to spend!

imp:

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

Not strictly accurate, what we don't know for sure is how CCFC turnover compares to other clubs in the division.

League 1 and League 2, clubs have chosen to implement the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) first used in League 2 in 2004/05, although it will operate at different thresholds in each division.

The SCMP broadly limits spending on total player wages to a proportion of each club's turnover, with clubs providing budgetary information to The League at the beginning of the season that is updated as the campaign progresses.

Any club that is deemed to have breached the permitted spending threshold will be subject to a transfer embargo. Wherever possible, The League will seek to tackle the issue 'at source' by refusing player registrations that take clubs beyond the threshold.

At the beginning of the current season, League 2 clubs reduced the permitted spending threshold to 55% from 60% and this figure will continue to be operated next season.

League 1 clubs are currently operating a 'pilot' of the SCMP with clubs complying with a 75% threshold but with no sanctions being applicable this season. This threshold will reduce to 65% in 2012/13 and 60% in 2013/14 with sanctions (transfer embargoes) being applicable in both seasons.

We do know CCFC average attendences are 3rd highest in the league.
How the ratio of ticket sales compares to other potential matchday incomes I don't know, but knowledge of that would be needed to understand where City stand in the pecking order.

Team Pld Total Highest Average Capacity Pct
1 Sheffield United (5) 15 276431 21819 18429 32609 56.5%
2 Portsmouth (23) 16 193480 17703 12093 20688 58.4%
3 Coventry City (8) 16 174729 15185 10921 32500 33.6%
4 Preston North End (18) 16 149609 12014 9351 19525 47.8%

 

[grego_gee]

to understand where City stand in the pecking order.

Not relevant really! The point is we would be more competitive with it than without it!
We need to pull out all the stops to get the biggest edge we can over other clubs.

imp:

 

[Jack Griffin]

Not relevant really! The point is we would be more competitive with it than without it!
We need to pull out all the stops to get the biggest edge we can over other clubs.

imp:

Well I think it is relevant. If they are in the top 3 or 4 of turnover then they should have a very good chance of promotion, and there is no certainty (unless you're Rangers in a Micky Mouse League & no one in this leage gets that sort of edge).

 

[grego_gee]

Well I think it is relevant.

What are you talking about? I am saying they need the biggest playing budget they can get! Are you arguing about that?

imp:

 

[Jack Griffin]

Read what I said more carefully, my question was based on where City would be without the additional revenues TF is on about?

I'll try & explain...

Clearly CCFC are right up there in terms of turnover from ticket sales, but what proportion of potential turnover is that, if it is only 50% of potential then it makes a huge difference, if it is but 5% then it is only marginal.
You have to know about the actual numbers and the competitors budgets to be able to agree or disagree with Fishers argument and assess its relevance.

Have you any data to clarify the position or are you just arguing from a position of ignorance & blind loyalty.
Personally I want to know some numbers & I'd be grateful if anyone can produce them.

 

[CCFC_GT]

Their owners know what they are doing and hav the capacity to execute it. That's the difference. They have invested heavily ahead of FFP and can now adhere being in the strong position they want.

Ours on the other hand, won't invest and have steered us to huge losses. And the revenue you now claim is so critical to their success was never on the table. This isn't a new thing you know. Nothing has changed whatsoever with regards revenues since 2007.

The only thing that's changed is relegation. And since then it's seemingly everything

SISU has invested in CCFC, it has invested £45M, though it has clearly not done this well as it has nothing to show for it but a huge potential loss, I think we would all agree on that.
Revenue is critical to any business, and particularly so to CCFC since the introduction of the FFP rules, which in 2011/12 restricted our wage bill to 75% of turnover, in 2012/2013 to 65% of turnover, and in 2013/2014 to 60% of turnover.
One thing hasn't changed since the Ricoh was built, and that is the Council being unwilling to sell the Ricoh to any new owner, and the Council asking £24M for rights to revenue streams that they paid only £6M for is on the face of it extortionate, unless they care to share with us why £24M is a reasonable value.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Again. They haven't. The £24m is refuted by all sides. Even Fisher

 

[CCFC_GT]

Read what I said more carefully, my question was based on where City would be without the additional revenues TF is on about?

I'll try & explain...

Clearly CCFC are right up there in terms of turnover from ticket sales, but what proportion of potential turnover is that, if it is only 50% of potential then it makes a huge difference, if it is but 5% then it is only marginal.
You have to know about the actual numbers and the competitors budgets to be able to agree or disagree with Fishers argument and assess its relevance.

Have you any data to clarify the position or are you just arguing from a position of ignorance & blind loyalty.
Personally I want to know some numbers & I'd be grateful if anyone can produce them.

Clearly none of us know the numbers and the extent to which additional revenue would benefit CCFC, because the Council is not even willing to divulge revenue figures to SISU. The only certainty is that CCFC would be better off than they are if they had additional revenue, and that should be of interest to most people on this forum.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Clearly none of us know the numbers and the extent to which additional revenue would benefit CCFC, because the Council is not even willing to divulge revenue figures to SISU. The only certainty is that CCFC would be better off than they are if they had additional revenue, and that should be of interest to most people on this forum.

This wasn't on the table when they bought into the club. Never part of their business plan since 2007. Why is it needed now?

And don't tell me FFP, as we've just offered McGoldrick £10K per week, which would make him the highest paid player in the division, and all this on existing turnover

 

[Jack Griffin]

Clearly none of us know the numbers and the extent to which additional revenue would benefit CCFC, because the Council is not even willing to divulge revenue figures to SISU. The only certainty is that CCFC would be better off than they are if they had additional revenue, and that should be of interest to most people on this forum.

Actually the council has nothing to do directly with the disclosure, though it has a substantial influence on the board of ACL, but not a majority.

Disclosure is down to ACL & PKH said on the radio that ACL were prepared to allow SISU access to the information. So they are prepared to disclose information, but somehow the means by which they could do it was not acceptable to TF. I can't explain that one.

 

[skybluehugh]

OK, so for you the finances of the Council are more important than the future of CCFC, that's fine and you are as entilted to your opinion as the rest of us.
However, the difficulties that the football club face are not temporary, they are permanent for as long as the council maintains its present stance on the revenue streams, or until a wealthy benefactor comes forward who is prepared to buy a business with virtually no assets and limited revenue and then invest millions in a business that will lose millions year on year (as SISU has done).

It is NOT THE MONEY OF THE COUNCIL IT IS MONEY OWED TO THE CITY OF COVENTRY which means every man, woman and child of said city, not just the 10-12.000 that go to the matches.

 

[CCFC_GT]

Again. They haven't. The £24m is refuted by all sides. Even Fisher

Fisher did not refute the figure he said the figure came from Daniel Gidney (former CEO of the Ricoh Arena), but that it did not form part of the current negotiations.

To quote Ashbyjan from the Thread entitled "We have to pay acl £24m for revenue rights":-

"Have just spoken to Tim Fisher and he has told me that this number was one that was proposed by Daniel Gidney many months ago and has formed no part of the current negotiations. It was a number that obviously was dismissed out of hand by the club and has never been mentioned again by either party so it is really a red herring.
Clarified?"


​

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Fisher did not refute the figure he said the figure came from Daniel Gidney (former CEO of the Ricoh Arena), but that it did not form part of the current negotiations.

To quote Ashbyjan from the Thread entitled "We have to pay acl £24m for revenue rights":-

"Have just spoken to Tim Fisher and he has told me that this number was one that was proposed by Daniel Gidney many months ago and has formed no part of the current negotiations. It was a number that obviously was dismissed out of hand by the club and has never been mentioned again by either party so it is really a red herring.
Clarified?"


​

It was a verbal estimate I now understand, quoted once in one meeting. It has no science behind it. On this basis, I refute it as a sideshow. Not the figure quoted as I've stated previously the context in which it was.

Neither side has pushed for, or requested more clarity behind it, as both agree its off the table and irrelevant. Even Fisher agrees with such. We can't even agree about what's on the table. There's no point in arguing over that which isn't

 

[Grendel]

It is NOT THE MONEY OF THE COUNCIL IT IS MONEY OWED TO THE CITY OF COVENTRY which means every man, woman and child of said city, not just the 10-12.000 that go to the matches.

A nonensical argument. If they sell at a colossal profit are you seriously suggesting a council tax reduction?

 

[Grendel]

Read what I said more carefully, my question was based on where City would be without the additional revenues TF is on about?

I'll try & explain...

Clearly CCFC are right up there in terms of turnover from ticket sales, but what proportion of potential turnover is that, if it is only 50% of potential then it makes a huge difference, if it is but 5% then it is only marginal.
You have to know about the actual numbers and the competitors budgets to be able to agree or disagree with Fishers argument and assess its relevance.

Have you any data to clarify the position or are you just arguing from a position of ignorance & blind loyalty.
Personally I want to know some numbers & I'd be grateful if anyone can produce them.

Additional revenues include various elements.

Projecting revenue from refreshments is not too difficult. It would be around £700,000 a season over an average of 25 games.

Parking is a significant generator as well with I would estimate 2,000 tickets sold as season tickets generating £600,000 and probably another £200,000 at least as pay on the door sales.

Naming rights and sponsorship has to be more lucrative. The stadium naming rights relies on the club being there. It is the representative and permenant brand of the stadium - all ground sponsorship is critical. As the permenant tenant the club pays match day fees which again contribute to the maintanence of the stadium and general brand awareness. So again the club would legitimately argue that they receive a proprtion of revenue from other events. This element may be more marginal however the whole package is worth well over £1 million a season.

The revenue streams are easily an additional 50% of the revenue and I am playing a conservative card.

 

[Jack Griffin]

The revenue streams are easily an additional 50% of the revenue and I am playing a conservative card.

Methinks you are making it up , the average turnover in this league was £131/24 = £ 5.45M in 2012 (source Deloitte Annual Review of Football 2012)

And you have no basis on which to rest those figures, even Fisher says he has not got access to them, how do you know?

What are your sources?

 

[CCFC_GT]

It is NOT THE MONEY OF THE COUNCIL IT IS MONEY OWED TO THE CITY OF COVENTRY which means every man, woman and child of said city, not just the 10-12.000 that go to the matches.

To an extent I don't disagree with your point, which i assume is regarding the rent, not revenue which has been the main thrust of this particular debate, and i also understand, as i hope you do, that the two are inextricably linked in the dispute between the Council and SISU.
I would not wish ACL and the taxpayer (that includes me) to be faced with a loss, and i accept all the arguments about bills being payed etc.
At the same time i am fundamentally opposed to the Council continuing to own and control the asset that is the Ricoh and the majority of revenue streams that come from it because:-
a) Money is the single biggest factor in football these days, and the more CCFC has the better chance it has of being successful (and yes of course it still needs to be managed well).
b) Without any significant assets or additional revenue streams CCFC will not be attractive to new investors from a business prospective.
c) SISU, which is now lumbered with a loss-making football club, will not be able to turn CCFC into a financially secure and attractive business that it can sell on.
d) Even if SISU decided to cut their losses and sell for £1 to new investors, the new owners would still be saddled with the same flawed business model.
e) As a tax payer, despite assurances from ACL to the contrary, I am concerned that without CCFC at the arena, and the reduced profile, value of naming rights etc. that this would bring, the arena could become a white elephant and drain on tax payers money.

I am grateful that the Council and THT stepped in when they did to make the arena happen, and i am equally grateful that SISU stepped in to save CCFC when no-one else did, but the fact is that the Council and SISU have both contributed to the sorry situation that we are now in. The Council through their unwillingness to sell their stake in the arena or negotiate reasonably over the combined rent/revenue issue as a whole, and SISU through their mis-management of the football club.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It is NOT THE MONEY OF THE COUNCIL IT IS MONEY OWED TO THE CITY OF COVENTRY which means every man, woman and child of said city, not just the 10-12.000 that go to the matches.

How much will the people of Coventry see? :thinking about:

You can't really say extra expenditure, because in this government, they are keen to see public expenditure cut so there wouldn't be any radical expenditure the people of Coventry will benefit from. The parties the councillors throw will be better though!

 

[CCFC_GT]

Originally Posted by CCFC_GT
Clearly none of us know the numbers and the extent to which additional revenue would benefit CCFC, because the Council is not even willing to divulge revenue figures to SISU. The only certainty is that CCFC would be better off than they are if they had additional revenue, and that should be of interest to most people on this forum.

This wasn't on the table when they bought into the club. Never part of their business plan since 2007. Why is it needed now?

And don't tell me FFP, as we've just offered McGoldrick £10K per week, which would make him the highest paid player in the division, and all this on existing turnover

Surely you do not believe that the SISU business plan was based purely on ticket sales and did not include trying to negotiate a better rent/revenue deal on behalf of CCFC - because this was and is unsustainable for the football club.
Regardless of what CCFC offers any individual player, under FFP rules it cannot spend more than 65% of its turnover on wages because a transfer embargo will come into effect, so paying one player more just means you have less to spend on the rest of the squad.
Which gets back to the point that CCFC needs to increase its revenue and thus turnover so that it can spend more on players and have a better chance than we already do of progressing - I don't understand why any true CCFC supporter would not want this for CCFC regardless of his/her feelings about SISU.