Waggot and SBITC (1 Viewer)

[fernandopartridge]

Thats for the club to decide if they need to make cuts to pay the rent nothing to do with the trust.

Agree, any decision the club makes is nothing to do with the Trust, you're agreeing with Godiva indirectly.

The deal that is on the table is one that as a Trust we feel is fair to all parties.

That's alright then.

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I think you live in some dream world where all negotiations are carried out with tea and sandwiches.

Wrong. I make my living negotiating deals of a value on a par with these on the table here, often values well in excess. As such, I can tell you that to complete due diligence, and then renege on a lawful contract because circumstances change and the business plan isn't sufficiently robust to support such a change is amateurish. At best. At the time SISU bought the club, we were closer to the relegation zone than automatic promotion: and therefore not to factor this in is frankly incredible beyond words.

Mine isn't a fantasy world of negotiation; in this instance, if anything, SISU's is. Reason being that any other private landlord, without care for recourse, would have cleaned them out months ago.

 

[Godiva]

Wrong. I make my living negotiating deals of a value on a par with these on the table here, often values well in excess. As such, I can tell you that to complete due diligence, and then renege on a lawful contract because circumstances change and the business plan isn't sufficiently robust to support such a change is amateurish. At best. At the time SISU bought the club, we were closer to the relegation zone than automatic promotion: and therefore not to factor this in is frankly incredible beyond words.

Mine isn't a fantasy world of negotiation; in this instance, if anything, SISU's is. Reason being that any other private landlord, without care for recourse, would have cleaned them out months ago.

If you're doing negotiations for a living, then surely you know that past reality is far from the same as present reality. Business plans fails all the time - more so in the wake of the financial crisis and the credit crunch.
So you can't really use the past to anything more than playing the blame game. And that brings absolutely nobody anywhere.

At this point in time it seems the club is skinned and can't afford the rent. So it is either stay at a reduced rent or leave.

If you put yourself in chairmans seat in ccfc boardroom ... what would you do?
(You have already presented a budget that was turned down by the owners as they are not going to put in more money - the club will have to be self sufficient).

 

[Waldorf]

You won't get the club properly involved in the community until the fans have real influence, and that means owning a chunk of the club, and a seat on the board.

 

[Godiva]

You won't get the club properly involved in the community until the fans have real influence, and that means owning a chunk of the club, and a seat on the board.

Even that wouldn't unite the fans. But a fans representative would be a great hostage for the board.

 

[Waldorf]

Wrong. I make my living negotiating deals of a value on a par with these on the table here, often values well in excess. As such, I can tell you that to complete due diligence, and then renege on a lawful contract because circumstances change and the business plan isn't sufficiently robust to support such a change is amateurish. At best. At the time SISU bought the club, we were closer to the relegation zone than automatic promotion: and therefore not to factor this in is frankly incredible beyond words.

Mine isn't a fantasy world of negotiation; in this instance, if anything, SISU's is. Reason being that any other private landlord, without care for recourse, would have cleaned them out months ago.

Agreed, and as someone else who's been involved in negotiations, I know that you don't get an agreement unless both parties are prepared to compromise. So far, the club haven't moved from their position of £175,000 a year, supposedly based on the average Div.1 rent. I notice no-one at the club has ever given any evidence for this, just bald statements.

 

[ashbyjan]

Hostage? Cue back page of CT with Fisher holding gun to fans rep head muttering give me the Ricoh for nothing or the fan gets it....not my fault, they pushed me to it......yes the voices, the voices......Joy get out of my head.....I'm doing it for you Joy........

 

[Godiva]

Hostage? Cue back page of CT with Fisher holding gun to fans rep head muttering give me the Ricoh for nothing or the fan gets it....not my fault, they pushed me to it......yes the voices, the voices......Joy get out of my head.....I'm doing it for you Joy........

More like any decision that will split the fanbase is legitimized by having a fans rep at the board.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

If you're doing negotiations for a living, then surely you know that past reality is far from the same as present reality. Business plans fails all the time - more so in the wake of the financial crisis and the credit crunch.
So you can't really use the past to anything more than playing the blame game. And that brings absolutely nobody anywhere.

At this point in time it seems the club is skinned and can't afford the rent. So it is either stay at a reduced rent or leave.

If you put yourself in chairmans seat in ccfc boardroom ... what would you do?
(You have already presented a budget that was turned down by the owners as they are not going to put in more money - the club will have to be self sufficient).

Past reality should be current reality if the business plan is robust, dear chap. The financial events of the past few years haven't had a bearing on attendances in either the championship, or this league; I've posted such facts previously so that's not a factor. Our current position directly resulting from relegation. If its too expensive for the championship, it's certainly going to be even more profoundly so with £3m-worth of lost gate receipts.

The easy answer to your question would be a cop-out. I would like to think I'd never be in this position. Primarily as that the income drop they've seen wasn't an unthinkable sequence of events or Act of God; it was a clear and present possibility. It really and truly should have been accommodated within the broader thinking of the due diligence process. That's why u have so little sympathy; as these folk purport to be business people, and this is a childish faux pas. If indeed it was mistake and that they always planned on doing this in the event of relegation, but that's another issue, eh?

I would have wanted to income-gear the rental agreement, with a deal of say £1.2m for when in the premier league, £500K for when in the championship, and £300K for when in this league.

That stated, we are where we are, and everyone needs to save a little face, so if I were Fisher, given the £400K has allegedly already been knocked-back, I'd run with a counter offer of £300K and an additional £150K in the event of promotion. As such, public opinion would then fall upon ACL to accept as they could be seen to actually fare better than their last offer.

Thereafter, with the traction of an agreement, I'd want to renegotiate the terms along the lines of that I describe above.

I wouldn't go on the radio and question ACL's financial stability et al, that's certain

 

[Godiva]

That stated, we are where we are, and everyone needs to save a little face, so if I were Fisher, given the £400K has allegedly already been knocked-back, I'd run with a counter offer of £300K and an additional £150K in the event of promotion. As such, public opinion would then fall upon ACL to accept as they could be seen to actually fare better than their last offer.

Thereafter, with the traction of an agreement, I'd want to renegotiate the terms along the lines of that I describe above.

The above paragraphs deserved 'a like', but as the rest of your post (the majority) was pointing to the past and statement of you would have done 5 years ago rounded off with a statement of what you wouldn't have done 1 month ago ... I cannot really give you a point.

Anyway - what about the £1m+ outstanding rent? As you have come to the conclusion you will look for a rent at about £300k p/y, what would your negotiation stance be to the arrears?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The above paragraphs deserved 'a like', but as the rest of your post (the majority) was pointing to the past and statement of you would have done 5 years ago rounded off with a statement of what you wouldn't have done 1 month ago ... I cannot really give you a point.

Anyway - what about the £1m+ outstanding rent? As you have come to the conclusion you will look for a rent at about £300k p/y, what would your negotiation stance be to the arrears?

Initial thoughts? Negotiate a lower value in light of the new rental settlement and then agree a repayment dependant upon division and therefore income again. But include a date by which arrears need to be cleared - say 10 years

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Seems to be lots of different themes within this thread but in terms of an overall narrative how about – CCFC’s problems began with Richardson running up debts.This was compounded by CCFC selling Highfield Road without having purchased a new home. The club ended up having to rely on the Council and Higgs Charity to fund a new stadium. ACL has failed to make a profit net of ccfc rent and the debt leveraging of the Ricoh has made things difficult for the Council/ACL. These problems were there before SISU took over. Under Ransom there appeared to be a strategy in place but this was abandoned and a period of complete chaos ensued. Under Fisher and Waggott the ship has been steadied through strong cost cutting with the aim of reaching breakeven point within 2 or 3 years. ACL’s offer on the rent dispute is in thepublic domain. What is very unclear is SISU’s motives. Reducing the rent is part of the cost cutting exercise. But plenty of people seem to think SISU’s real agenda is about getting ownership of the Ricoh and/or surrounding land. At the moment we are all guessing about this, although it would seem pretty safe to assume that beyond the strategy of stemming on-going losses SISU also want to recoup at least some of their investment (£47 million). I don’t see any of the parties in this have covered themselves in glory and given the huge amount of business talent that has created this mess I don’t see how supporter representation/part ownership could make things any worse – and might just introduce a bit of common sense.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Oh, and on any agreement look toward a Parent Company Guarantee from SISU to keep them focused on funding and locked-into the club moving forward. Bit of movement from all sides, therefore

 

[Godiva]

Initial thoughts? Negotiate a lower value in light of the new rental settlement and then agree a repayment dependant upon division and therefore income again. But include a date by which arrears need to be cleared - say 10 years

Ok - a lower value.
That is pretty vague and I would expect you came to the table with a figure.
If you were chaiman of ccfc - what would that figure be?

 

[Waldorf]

I would have wanted to income-gear the rental agreement, with a deal of say £1.2m for when in the premier league, £500K for when in the championship, and £300K for when in this league.

I thought that was what has been offered. Or rather, a rent based on both the division and the gate, starting at £400k and going up in stages as crowds increase and we get promotion.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Ok - a lower value.
That is pretty vague and I would expect you came to the table with a figure.
If you were chaiman of ccfc - what would that figure be?

If I were chairman I'd have a lot more facts before me, so this is conjecture. I also wouldn't be in this position as I elude above. However, if you're still asking me to be empathetic to Fisher's current position, I'd offer half of that owed, clearing funds from the beginning of next season; with £50K per season in L1, £75K in the championship and £200K if in the premiership. The debt could then be cleared within 4 seasons. Again, the better performance of the club being reflected in a better position for ACL.

From ACL's side, I'd want the club to commit to putting a percentage of player sale profits - say 10% of net profit - into clearing this backlog. To guard against SISU, or any owners, selling players at great profit whilst aged liabilities were still kicking around

 

[Godiva]

If I were chairman I'd have a lot more facts before me, so this is conjecture. I also wouldn't be in this position as I elude above. However, if you're still asking me to be empathetic to Fisher's current position, I'd offer half of that owed, clearing funds from the beginning of next season; with £50K per season in L1, £75K in the championship and £200K if in the premiership. The debt could then be cleared within 4 seasons. Again, the better performance of the club being reflected in a better position for ACL.

From ACL's side, I'd want the club to commit to putting a percentage of player sale profits - say 10% of net profit - into clearing this backlog. To guard against SISU, or any owners, selling players at great profit whilst aged liabilities were still kicking around

Good answer.

I think you are pretty much in-line with what Fischer is trying to achieve. So his and your aim may actually be quite similar.
You may have different ideas to public communication tactics, but as long as you agree on the result I think you're backing Fischer in doing what is best for the club.

Or?

 

[Sky Blues]

As Fisher so unprofessionally revealed that loan costs ACL £1.6m a year so the clubs original rent doesn't even cover that cost. During the original negotiations over the rent ACL actually offered McGinnity a deal based on attendances but his response was no (it was actually a lot blunter and ruder).

Jan, where did Fisher say this? I'm sure you're right, I just don't recall hearing it before. I've been asking those posters on here who trot out the line that CCFC is being "ripped off" by ACL to explain to me how that is so. If what you report here is correct surely that suggests that far from paying above RRP (using the Mercedes/Kia analogy employed elsewhere in this thread), we are actually getting it at a discount (or cross-subsidised by Charlie, who owns a casino)?

Or, to put it another way, if Jan is right and if we take ACL's last offer, I think this means CCFC will be getting, for £400,000 a year, use of a stadium which was costing ACL £1.6m in loan repayments (prior to any restructuring of that loan arrangement). So the anchor tenant could potentially be paying only a quarter towards the cost of the facility it uses. I ask again, is that a rip-off?

 

[fernandopartridge]

If I were chairman I'd have a lot more facts before me, so this is conjecture. I also wouldn't be in this position as I elude above. However, if you're still asking me to be empathetic to Fisher's current position, I'd offer half of that owed, clearing funds from the beginning of next season; with £50K per season in L1, £75K in the championship and £200K if in the premiership. The debt could then be cleared within 4 seasons. Again, the better performance of the club being reflected in a better position for ACL.

From ACL's side, I'd want the club to commit to putting a percentage of player sale profits - say 10% of net profit - into clearing this backlog. To guard against SISU, or any owners, selling players at great profit whilst aged liabilities were still kicking around

That sounds reasonable to be honest.

Which player sale profits are these? Are you talking purely on profit against transfer fee or profit against entire cost (transfer fee + salary)?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

That sounds reasonable to be honest.

Which player sale profits are these? Are you talking purely on profit against transfer fee or profit against entire cost (transfer fee + salary)?

Profit against their asset book value. Their wages would go against operating expenses. Seems the fairest way to do it.

In case of a product of the academy, I'd want to agree a fair 'value' for an academy player. So, and these figures are for clarity only, if the net cost of running academy is £1m per season, and over - again say - the last five seasons, 5 academy products make it to the first team; it could be seen that the cost of bringing a player through from academy to first team could be seen at £200K. This making allowance for the players who cost the club but don't make it. So, potentially fair to the club.

Then, if they sell a player such as Christie for £1m, then the pay 10% of the £800K - so £80K against any outstanding liability against the arrears. Terms back-to-back in the case of staged transfers, naturally

 

[oldskyblue58]

seems a reasonable solution to me MMM - I like your thinking

There is a deal for both sides that could be made ...... and it would certainly test the reasons for this dispute

 

[Tonylinc]

There certainly is a deal to done here BUT as I have said in previous posts even a nil rent will not be enough for Sisu. They want ownership of the Ricoh and the surrounding land. Nothing short of that will satisfy them I'm afraid.

 

[Waldorf]

There certainly is a deal to done here BUT as I have said in previous posts even a nil rent will not be enough for Sisu. They want ownership of the Ricoh and the surrounding land. Nothing short of that will satisfy them I'm afraid.

I think you're right, but I also think the Council are determined not to let SISU get their hands on it.