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.
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.
Sorry this is factually wrong.
Well no other owner would -- so there you go. You would rather we cease to exist. Unbelievable.
Remember CJ is not too hot on facts.
Infact the council contributed £10m page 6
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - arena construction completion report.pdf
Right, so they have no right to have that repaid via the rent to ACL then?
Stupot why are you so keen to see the club screw over its creditors like this? CCFC are getting to be as bad as Pompey. I would rather see us turfed out of the Ricoh then see us strong-arm the council into a rent reduction..
Right, so they have no right to have that repaid via the rent to ACL then?
Stupot why are you so keen to see the club screw over its creditors like this? CCFC are getting to be as bad as Pompey. I would rather see us turfed out of the Ricoh then see us strong-arm the council into a rent reduction..
I would rather see the club accept an offer that saves £800k a year and brings in extra revenue. Tim Fisher disagrees since keeping David Bell on the wage bill makes more sense.
I would rather see the club accept an offer that saves £800k a year and brings in extra revenue. Tim Fisher disagrees since keeping David Bell on the wage bill makes more sense.
CJ why are you so keen to see the club go out of business?Right, so they have no right to have that repaid via the rent to ACL then?
Stupot why are you so keen to see the club screw over its creditors like this? CCFC are getting to be as bad as Pompey. I would rather see us turfed out of the Ricoh then see us strong-arm the council into a rent reduction..
CJ why are you so keen to see the club go out of business?
Well that is what is going to happen if we keep paying 1.2 million pound rentI'm not. I just don't like the tactics used with the council and think that the blame lies with the club's owners (SISU, BR etc) and not ACL, who should not be made to pay for CCFC's failure.
Ability to pay has nothing to do with it. SISU had the cash when they sniffed a quick buck - now let's see how deep their pockets really are.
Not a bad post there Phil - but you seem to forget how much the council / ACL forked out to help build the stadium - the rent was agreed as a way of them getting that paid back. If we were in the Premier League now, nobody would be complaining about the rent. And whose fault is it that we are not in the Premier? It sure as hell isn't ACL's!!!
It's nothing to do with paying them back. We are led to believe ACL are a profitable business and will continue to be profitable with no rent from the club.
The club will not survive under the current arrangements.
Many are to blame for where the club now resides.
If SISU do or don't have the money isn't the issue for me, the issue is a fair rent. The figures being banded about would suggest that the ACL have taken advantage of the financial incompetence of the people who signed the lease. Whilst SISU haven't covered themselves in glory up to this point they do at least appear to be getting somewhere with the rent issue.
I think the with holding of the rent has been key to getting the deal they have now been offer, it's only 12 months or so since the ACL were say that the stadium doesn't need CCFC, whilst that my or may not be true. Its interest that they have dropped the rent by 2/3, either they know they have been taking the piss for sometime, or having CCFC at the ground is of some benefit to them above just the rent we pay(or don't pay)
How can you get rid of/release/sell a player who is injured and no one wants? To release him will mean financially compensating him which will be paying out the rest of his contract anyway.
The more we cut off, the better, surely!?
With regards to Bell, what options do we have, terminate his contract? We'd have to pay his wages in a lump sum :facepalm: I imagine we're going to sell him, like we were trying to before he got injured. It wasn't SISU's decision to renew his contract - that was AT's call. With ROD, AB signed him, transfers is under the manager's jurisdiction.
I think you'll find that any contract extensions would've gone through Dulieu/Igwe.
I still have a couple of major problems with all of this and they are;
where do all of these 'average' rent figures come from and secondly;
where are the facts and figures to support them?
I maintain that it is virtually impossible to calculate them as there are so many imponderables in the club accounts (that's all of the clubs not just CCFC). Quite a few clubs own their grounds but appear to have them heavily mortgaged so do we count those payments as rent? Some have more than one charge on their assetts, Cardiff for example had a mortgage outstanding to Hoffman's Venture Capital company that, at one stage was being interpreted as preventing Cardiff from selling any assetts (including players) without his approval. Would this be a charge on the ground that could be construed as rent? Swansea's ground is owned by the local authority and they have supported the club by charging only a 'peppercorn' rent. Now they are in the premiership the LA wants more...go away says Swansea. See the problem?
So, come on Mr Fisher, or anyone else for that matter, give us the detailed figures that support your 'fair rent' claims. Do that and I for one might be a little more sympathetic to your cause.
So it would appear that ACL's offer of £400K is about correct.
Discuss in less than 500 words!
Is this to me?
Swansea? My thread dedicated to it, has the web page with all facts on it. Ipswich, there was another thread and I comment was posted comparing us to Ipswich (who refused to pay rent) have a lot less contracted rent, and Hull didn't have to pay no rent, as a firm basically paid for it (in basic terms) all 3 are more successful than us, and have more money to spend.
We wonder why we have to sell players and not replace them when we have to pay 100k a month in rent!? :thinking about: Adam Barton a month isn't it, too much and anyone who thinks we should lie down and accept is smoking some good shit. - mind you, that's a fair few people.
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?