Why ACL's rent calculation could be justified. (1 Viewer)

Grendel · Dec 10, 2012

Jim said:
No we should pay for the facility that we currently use. And that is a top notch stadium far in excess of other league one stadia.

The offer of a reduction to £400k per annum would reduce our rent to less than 10% of total overheads. Hardly a crippling cost for what should one of the major outlays for any business.

Offer has been made. Club should have accepted. Simple.

This is hilarious. First people criticised the club using the bank anolagy - namely if we didn't pay a rent we would be kicked out.

However rent is determined my market forces and area so taking the average is a good bench mark.

Now it seems income is a factor too. So when you ask for a mortgage does your bank manager say to you - you earn twice as much as everyone else in your street so I am going to double your mortgage?

No they don't. ACL apparently don't need the club. Small wonder having overcharges us by over 500% every year.

Time the club got a fair deal.

PhilWasn'tBabb · Dec 10, 2012

In some respects I've lost some sympathy for the ACL. How can they go from charging 100k a month, to 400k a year. They clearly know that they totally screwed over the financial incompetence who were in charge of the club at the time the lease was signed, why else would they drop so far so fast.

In some respects a fool deserves to separated from his money, but this is our club we're talking about. If we're being screwed over money wise by the ACL then I'll begrudgingly give SISU some support for trying to get the club the best deal they can. Just as long as they don't get there hands on any part of the ground themselves, then we truly would be fucked.

Big Mo · Dec 10, 2012

On a more simplistic level any property is "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it and there is no such thing as an objective value.

As such you would expect sisu to negotiate a reduction in a businesslike and professional manner, not withhold the rent, get taken to court and create a public slanging match.

Think we can mostly agree they've gone about the right thing in totally the wrong way

Mucca Mad Boys · Dec 10, 2012

Jim said:
Offer has been made. Club should have accepted. Simple.

What if we get a deal that suits CCFC!?

... Glad you don't run the club.

It is 'rule of thumb' you don't accept the 1st offer, you have to haggle to get what you want.

CCFC > ACL, my logic anyway.

coundonskyblue · Dec 10, 2012

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
What if we get a deal that suits CCFC!?

... Glad you don't run the club.

It is 'rule of thumb' you don't accept the 1st offer, you have to haggle to get what you want.

CCFC > ACL, my logic anyway.

Its the 3rd offer

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Dec 10, 2012

coundonskyblue said:
Most other grounds are complete dives that don't even have major corporate areas. We have the 3rd biggest crowds, and the second biggest stadium.

The only grounds that come close to the Ricoh in terms of facilities and income potential (ie concerts, other sports), are Bramall Lane, Stadium MK, and at a push Deepdale.

The other facilities like the concert halls and casino are irrelevant aren't they, the club don't pay to use them or profit from them in anyway do they?

coundonskyblue · Dec 10, 2012

CCFC said:
The other facilities like the concert halls and casino are irrelevant aren't they, the club don't pay to use them or profit from them in anyway do they?

Yes that is true, my point has got lost somewhere.

Other clubs matchday income is based on parking & kiosk sales. 50% of what CCFC fans spend on this will be more than the 100% that the vast majority of other league 1 clubs get. That is why it is wrong to base the deal Fisher wants on what other clubs do & don't get.

50% of matchday income is a good deal.

stupot07 · Dec 10, 2012

Perhaps Man U ought to give all the money they make from oversee shirt sales to charity instead o using it to pay player £200k per week.

coundonskyblue · Dec 10, 2012

stupot07 said:
Perhaps Man U ought to give all the money they make from oversee shirt sales to charity instead o using it to pay player £200k per week.

I fail to see the relevance.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Dec 10, 2012

coundonskyblue said:
I fail to see the relevance.

Do you not think the clubs should have greater financial rewards for having better attendances than other clubs?

If someone said to a top club, oh we are gonna take 50% income off you because 50% is still greater than 100% income of other clubs. Would you view that as fair?

wingy · Dec 10, 2012

CCFC said:
Do you not think the clubs should have greater financial rewards for having better attendances than other clubs?

If someone said to a top club, oh we are gonna take 50% income off you because 50% is still greater than 100% income of other clubs. Would you view that as fair?

Theyve offered them 100% of their 50% take ,the other party compass take the other 50% as would happen if sisu were running the entire show.

Sky Blues · Dec 10, 2012

PhilWasn'tBabb said:
In some respects I've lost some sympathy for the ACL. How can they go from charging 100k a month, to 400k a year. They clearly know that they totally screwed over the financial incompetence who were in charge of the club at the time the lease was signed, why else would they drop so far so fast.

In some respects a fool deserves to separated from his money, but this is our club we're talking about. If we're being screwed over money wise by the ACL then I'll begrudgingly give SISU some support for trying to get the club the best deal they can. Just as long as they don't get there hands on any part of the ground themselves, then we truly would be fecked.

Maybe, and I don't know so I'm just throwing the idea out there, ACL can go from 100k a month to 400k a year because they have agreed a restructuring of their mortgage with Yorkshire Bank to allow them to make that offer. Maybe a couple of weeks ago when Mr Fisher excitedly bleated about how ACL were in financial trouble and Yorkshire Bank were getting involved, he was right that they had become involved, but wrong in that they became involved in a way which allowed ACL to make this final offer to CCFC/SISU or cut them loose if they refused to play ball. It's generally been perceived, after Fisher, that the reported involvement of the bank showed what a weak position ACL were in, but maybe its involvement strengthened ACL's hand?

Grendel · Dec 10, 2012

coundonskyblue said:
Yes that is true, my point has got lost somewhere.

Other clubs matchday income is based on parking & kiosk sales. 50% of what CCFC fans spend on this will be more than the 100% that the vast majority of other league 1 clubs get. That is why it is wrong to base the deal Fisher wants on what other clubs do & don't get.

50% of matchday income is a good deal.

Is this a joke? 50% is a shocking deal.

Grendel · Dec 10, 2012

coundonskyblue said:
I fail to see the relevance.

Last season we had below average attendance and many other clubs had better sources of other revenue. We still paid 500% the league average.

On a moral basis can you justify?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Dec 10, 2012

wingy said:
Theyve offered them 100% of their 50% take ,the other party compass take the other 50% as would happen if sisu were running the entire show.

Has that been said, or is that just your interpretation on what was reported

It could just as easily be 50% of there 50% couldn't it? or it could be as you said, we don't really know. tbf it is hard for any supporter to make a well informed opinion on the situation as 95% is all smoke and mirrors and facts get muddled up and both sides put there spin on the situation and distort the facts

wingy · Dec 10, 2012

CCFC said:
Has that been said, or is that just your interpretation on what was reported

It could just as easily be 50% of there 50% couldn't it? or it could be as you said, we don't really know. tbf it is hard for any supporter to make a well informed opinion on the situation as 95% is all smoke and mirrors and facts get muddled up and both sides put there spin on the situation and distort the facts

I'll try and find it in one of the Articles.

Black6Osprey · Dec 10, 2012

The club should take all matchday revenue. Its like renting a shop and then also having to give a % of your sales away as well. That part of the deal is cack. What the actual rent should be is another question.

wingy · Dec 10, 2012

The Telegraph has learned that the offer tabled by ACL included pegging any future increases in rent to promotion, and improved match attendances, as well as the chance to take what ACL makes from match day food and beverage sales

Johnnythespider · Dec 10, 2012

It could be because we're not in the championship this season.

PhilWasn'tBabb said:
In some respects I've lost some sympathy for the ACL. How can they go from charging 100k a month, to 400k a year. They clearly know that they totally screwed over the financial incompetence who were in charge of the club at the time the lease was signed, why else would they drop so far so fast.

In some respects a fool deserves to separated from his money, but this is our club we're talking about. If we're being screwed over money wise by the ACL then I'll begrudgingly give SISU some support for trying to get the club the best deal they can. Just as long as they don't get there hands on any part of the ground themselves, then we truly would be fucked.

coundonskyblue · Dec 10, 2012

CCFC said:
Do you not think the clubs should have greater financial rewards for having better attendances than other clubs?
 
If someone said to a top club, oh we are gonna take 50% income off you because 50% is still greater than 100% income of other clubs. Would you view that as fair?

Do you not think that clubs who dont sell their own ground & rent it back should have greater financial rewards?

Do you not think businesses that meet their contractual demands should be given more leeway than those who just refuse to pay until they get what they want?

PhilWasn'tBabb · Dec 10, 2012

Johnnythespider said:
It could be because we're not in the championship this season.

Its been widely reported that the rent was way over the general average even by championship standards.

Black6Osprey · Dec 10, 2012

coundonskyblue said:


Do you not think that clubs who dont sell their own ground & rent it back should have greater financial rewards?

Tell that to Man City

GaryPendrysEyes · Dec 10, 2012

The rent is valued at what someone wIll pay for it. We signed a contract for the current rate.
Ethically it is a premiership ground, and when the contract was signed And Sisu took it over I guess they thought it wasn't a major cost.
Sadly Sisu got us relegated and halved the gate,.
They needed to renegotiate in a professional business like manner, not like a bunch of 10th rate double gazing salesmen.

Johnnythespider · Dec 10, 2012

Correct and if you are a landlord who charges a rent agreed between you and the tennant i think you will find the onus is on the tennant to re-negotiate if they feel it is unfair. This does not include stopping paying as you will like as much find yourself out on the street. I cannot understand people defending our owners playing fast and loose with the future of our club, but hey we all see things differently.

PhilWasn'tBabb said:
Its been widely reported that the rent was way over the general average even by championship standards.

GaryPendrysEyes · Dec 10, 2012

Johnnythespider said:
Correct and if you are a landlord who charges a rent agreed between you and the tennant i think you will find the onus is on the tennant to re-negotiate if they feel it is unfair. This does not include stopping paying as you will like as much find yourself out on the street. I cannot understand people defending our owners playing fast and loose with the future of our club, but hey we all see things differently.

Agreed. But some Sisu apologists, like Grendel,, even praise Sisu for as you put it playing fast and loose with the future of our club.
Shame they weren't businesslike enough to sort it out in privately and professionally, without dividing supporters and dragging us negatively through the press some more.

Grendel · Dec 10, 2012

GaryPendrysEyes said:
The rent is valued at what someone wIll pay for it. We signed a contract for the current rate.
Ethically it is a premiership ground, and when the contract was signed And Sisu took it over I guess they thought it wasn't a major cost.
Sadly Sisu got us relegated and halved the gate,.
They needed to renegotiate in a professional business like manner, not like a bunch of 10th rate double gazing salesmen.

Please explain the phrase "ethically it is a Premiership Ground". What does that mean?

No one else would pay the rent as charged that is what this is all about.

Lack of investment in the team got us relegated. Perhaps if we had not been paying huge overblown rental payments we may have survived. Who knows?

Mucca Mad Boys · Dec 10, 2012

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Agreed. But some Sisu apologists, like Grendel,, even praise Sisu for as you put it playing fast and loose with the future of our club.
Shame they weren't businesslike enough to sort it out in privately and professionally, without dividing supporters and dragging us negatively through the press some more.

The club is safe, lets be serious, ACL and SISU would blow off their foot if they let us go down under. :facepalm:

PhilWasn'tBabb · Dec 10, 2012

I agree in most circumstances that SISU have behaved very poorly. However, I have some respect for there direct action approach to the rent situation, and so far, it appears to be working, 1.2 million - 400k

Clearly it could all still go tits up and find that we playing in memorial park come the new year, but I think its more likely that SISU will get there way, and the rent they want to pay.

coundonskyblue · Dec 10, 2012

PhilWasn'tBabb said:
I think its more likely that SISU will get there way, and the rent they want to pay.

I can't wait to see all the great players we're going to sign when sisu & acl do this deal.

GaryPendrysEyes · Dec 10, 2012

Grendel said:
Please explain the phrase "ethically it is a Premiership Ground". What does that mean?

No one else would pay the rent as charged that is what this is all about.

Lack of investment in the team got us relegated. Perhaps if we had not been paying huge overblown rental payments we may have survived. Who knows?

You do sound like an increasingly tedious Sisu apologist.
The ground is premiership standard, and the size and length of the contract reflected that. The landlord is unlikely to agree a clause to allow a reduction in rent due to relegation, which is out of their control. The solution was to have a reduced contract period allowing regular renegotiation.

Mucca Mad Boys · Dec 10, 2012

GaryPendrysEyes said:
You do sound like an increasingly tedious Sisu apologist.
The ground is premiership standard, and the size and length of the contract reflected that. The landlord

Swansea don't pay as much rent as us, enough said really... :facepalm:

Grendel · Dec 10, 2012

GaryPendrysEyes said:
You do sound like an increasingly tedious Sisu apologist.
The ground is premiership standard, and the size and length of the contract reflected that. The landlord

The ground is similar to many others in the Championship. No one else pays anything like the rent we do.

I am a supporter of the football club. If there is an apologist it is you -- for ACL. You clearly have little interest in the football club.

GaryPendrysEyes · Dec 10, 2012

Try reading the full post before commenting....

Grendel I look to the interests of Coventry it's club, fans and the city. You look at reasons to justify Sisu's failure.

Grendel · Dec 10, 2012

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Try reading the full post before commenting....

Grendel I look to the interests of Coventry it's club, fans and the city. You look at reasons to justify Sisu's failure.

This debate is to do with the rent. You because of your bias see the rent as a means of bringing the owners down. There is no other alternative and certainly none that will pay the rent as it stands. What is your preferred option - meltdown and Southern League Football?

CJparker · Dec 10, 2012

Grendel said:
This debate is to do with the rent. You because of your bias see the rent as a means of bringing the owners down. There is no other alternative and certainly none that will pay the rent as it stands. What is your preferred option - meltdown and Southern League Football?

There should be no debate a bout whether the rent is "justifiable" - it clearly is, because CCFC agreed it and it is there to pay back the council who built our stadium for us when we were homeless.

My opinion on this isn't anti-SISU as such, any owner should be paying the full rent without complaint, no matter what league we are in.

Why ACL's rent calculation could be justified. (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency