Stop this. It could have been agreed; but just outside thee auspices of the administration process.
And the CVA rejection has been discussed a million and one times. Surely not again, FFS
Essentially strangling the life out the home town football club... all long before any of us had even heard of SISU.
And these 'rental' deals haven't. You don't want to discuss the rejected CVA becuase you know there isn't a single justified reason to this day for it to have happened.
Again man, rubbish. Even at the preposterously high level, it was less than 10% of turnover. The judge just said exactly the same. That leaves 90% to run a business with. Yes, too high. Strangling the club? Do me a favour. Is it National Hyperbole Day?
Again man, rubbish. Even at the preposterously high level, it was less than 10% of turnover. The judge just said exactly the same. That leaves 90% to run a business with. Yes, too high. Strangling the club? Do me a favour. Is it National Hyperbole Day?
Fact One - the rent deal did return to that after 3 years unless an agreed compromise was reached
Fact Two - this deal had no revenues and no budging on sponsorship and other revenues despite the clubs return immediately improving the management companies asset value. Offering that deal to a new tenant would result in being rejected.
How do you know? You're only seeing what's reported and like me have no idea what's said behind closed doors.
Think Keogh might just have some idea, having played for us and dealt with the owners!
No. It's because it's been discussed a million and one times and I've got a life to lead that doesn't encourage me to add to that number by one more
Fact One - the rent deal did return to that after 3 years unless an agreed compromise was reached
Fact Two - this deal had no revenues and no budging on sponsorship and other revenues despite the clubs return immediately improving the management companies asset value. Offering that deal to a new tenant would result in being rejected.
10% of ACL's turnover.... not 10% of the club's total revenue though was it? What was the break even figure for the club on the deal 22K a game?
At least one deal was offered to the administrator, in the full knowledge that the club couldn't accept it.
Secondly.. if everything was to 'keep Coventry City in Coventry' then why the CVA rejection? Had that not occurred I believe we would have been back some time ago.
CCFC turnover 2012 £10.8m. Rent (again, too high, £1.3m). I can't be bothered to go back and list previous years, but yes - circa. 10%
We all waited for Judicial Review. The smoking gun. Maybe many smoking guns? It didn't happen. Indeed the judge commented on hos poorly the football cub had been run. So....
.... we just go back to the same old tired debates......
CCFC turnover 2012 £10.8m. Rent (again, too high, £1.3m). I can't be bothered to go back and list previous years, but yes - circa. 10%
We all waited for Judicial Review. The smoking gun. Maybe many smoking guns? It didn't happen. Indeed the judge commented on hos poorly the football cub had been run. So....
.... we just go back to the same old tired debates......
But when you rely on player sales as the vast majority of your income we are never going to build a successful team. If the club had to have a 22K attendance for every game just to not make a loss on matchday then you can see so much of what is wrong... and it's not just the rent... but also revenue streams.
Yes we all agree Ian including ACL. things were changing. rent was shook on at 400k remember by TF so he saw nothing wrong with that.
Why did Sisu turn down 150k for 10 years last year then?
Fact One - the rent deal did return to that after 3 years unless an agreed compromise was reached
Fact Two - this deal had no revenues and no budging on sponsorship and other revenues despite the clubs return immediately improving the management companies asset value. Offering that deal to a new tenant would result in being rejected.
But when you rely on player sales as the vast majority of your income we are never going to build a successful team. If the club had to have a 22K attendance for every game just to not make a loss on matchday then you can see so much of what is wrong... and it's not just the rent... but also revenue streams.
So yes you have found one year example that does fit that argument. But relying on ticket sales and sponsorship alone (the only other revenue streams we had) then what is the rental % then? 30%? 40%?
Derailing in progress.
Turnover is irrelevant to the point that the rental deal was too high. It is only relevant to the general point about the club's management.Again man, rubbish. Even at the preposterously high level, it was circa. 10% of turnover. The judge just said exactly the same. That leaves 90% to run a business with. Yes, too high. Strangling the club? Do me a favour. Is it National Hyperbole Day?
Can only imagine because they got zero matchday revenue as before. Although there is a saving on rent - if you sign up to that deal you are just recreating the same problem as before. No other revenue streams = more equity injection.
The club is not going to get itself to be self sufficient with continued reliance on someone to pump money because it can't generate it's own money. If people are happy for all that money to go to ACL that's fine... but we'll get the same as we have now, reliance on a paymaster.
You can't have things all your own way. How many times do we hear the line 'We're a Championship/League One club, we have to sell'; and then exclude player sales and their income from your business model? Crewe have built a club on it; and it's frankly preposterous to claim otherwise. I could look at other years. I simply can't be bothered; and frankly even if I did have the inclination, I fear I'd be wasting my time with you
I'm not sure how that is relevant really.. most clubs are selling clubs when a club from a higher league comes to take your best players.
I'm not saying to exclude it from a business model, but frankly you seem happy to ignore the fact the rental value as a proportion of the revenue the club can generate from ticket sales and sponsorship is ridiculously high. How will that ever create a model where the club can stand on it's own two feet?
But as long as you're happy that everytime you went to a football match at the Ricoh any other money you spent went to a faceless management company rather than the team you support that's fine.
I'm not sure how that is relevant really.. most clubs are selling clubs when a club from a higher league comes to take your best players.
I'm not saying to exclude it from a business model, but frankly you seem happy to ignore the fact the rental value as a proportion of the revenue the club can generate from ticket sales and sponsorship is ridiculously high. How will that ever create a model where the club can stand on it's own two feet?
But as long as you're happy that everytime you went to a football match at the Ricoh any other money you spent went to a faceless management company rather than the team you support that's fine.
How do you know? You're only seeing what's reported and like me have no idea what's said behind closed doors.
Think Keogh might just have some idea, having played for us and dealt with the owners!
I agree with some of that yes but 2 questions for you?
1. Surely a rent reduction of 90% outweighs rights of match day income which we know to be worth not as much even though you have the same problem?
2. Why did TF and ML shake on 400k in January 2013 if 150k wasn't good enough?
The point is sisu were always going to move out of the Ricoh regardless and that's clear as day. Also ccfc sold the rights for matchday income to Higgs and will only get them back in 1 of 2 ways, either paying for them or building a new stadium. Building a stadium will never never never happen so they have to buy them back and sisu know this but they tried (unsuccessfully) to get them on the absolute mega cheap to sell on at a massive profit.
It has been said time and time and time again ccfc sold there f/b rights and if ccfc want them back they have to buy them, it really is that simpleThe club is not going to get itself to be self sufficient with continued reliance on someone to pump money because it can't generate it's own money. If people are happy for all that money to go to ACL that's fine... but we'll get the same as we have now, reliance on a paymaster.
Its about what is fair and what is legally right and that's the way it is.
We all agree the rent was too high and revenues should go to ccfc. (never saying this again)
What level of rent is fair to you then? How much?
1. Maybe the net difference between the two doesn't amount to that much, but having the revenue streams to put in the 'revenue' column in the first place as opposed to just the 'outgoings' column may have something to do with it.
2. As I have said before - If the club had all matchday revenue streams as part of the deal I think it's fair as a start point. Why did Joy reject? Only she can answer that.
I think the SISU were always intending to break the lease deal.. they chose leaving the complex to do it in conjunction with the admin.
I completely agree about building a new stadium.. it's utter nonsense. The only way I ever see a way out of this is for the club to buy out and dissolve ACL.
Yes but ACL wont dissolve that's the problem isn't it. Do you think we should be back before the season starts on a low rental short term agreement or any other suggestion?
Yes but ACL wont dissolve that's the problem isn't it. Do you think we should be back before the season starts on a low rental short term agreement or any other suggestion?
Yes. Make a like for like offer ACL. What is there to lose?Yes I do. A year deal to start at whatever value (maybe sixfields rent value) with full matchday revenue. Gives both parties more revenue but long term the club has to secure ACL as part of it's business.
Yes I do. A year deal to start at whatever value (maybe sixfields rent value) with full matchday revenue. Gives both parties more revenue but long term the club has to secure ACL as part of it's business.
2 points....Who's "Tagline" is it anyway?......and, How many million times have we heard "The rent is too high"...Goose and Gander comes to mind mate!Fine... no reason for you to mention the 'rental deals' and everything else.. we've discussed it a million times previously. Maybe we'll be able to stop hearing the 'SISU batter people in court' tagline as that must have been used at least 5 million times.
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?