Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Excellent, what's your opinion on the question I asked about AEG? Do you agree with my opinion that I stated about the revenue streams?
Why can't Sisu accept a temp rent deal (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter skybluetony176
- Start date
Excellent, what's your opinion on the question I asked about AEG? Do you agree with my opinion that I stated about the revenue streams?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The losses are currently being covered by the investors that our owners are managing. Good job too, as they don't look as though they will stop in the foreseeable future.
Why not guess about SISU's wealth, we guess about pretty much everything else. I seem to recall from their accounts they only have a million or so, but I may be wrong on that. I'll have a look.
edit - SISU Capital net worth £800k
Last edited:
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
To of even posed that question in itself was silly, let's say on average that based on last seasons attendance figures that £4.50 worth of beverages was purchased during every home game.
£4.50 x 10,000 = £45,000
£45,000 x 23 = £1,035,000
Now of course this is a rough guess, but if it was accurate for instance it would pay off match costs and rent, based on the last offer two seasons over.
Is it beneficial? Of course it is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I think that the club needs the whole package to build a sustainable future.
I do appreciate that total package would cost, and there is no way SISU should get it on the cheap. So if it was available they should pay the correct price for it.
Not sure if I totally answered your question though...
I do appreciate that total package would cost, and there is no way SISU should get it on the cheap. So if it was available they should pay the correct price for it.
Not sure if I totally answered your question though...
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I shall explain why I will not guess on Sisu's wealth....... because I don't care about Sisu..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
So it was a silly question.......that you then decided you wanted to work out an answer to.
I doubt I spent £4.50 over a whole season in the ground, so I doubt it would be near that on average for everyone.
Of course you haven't knocked off the cost of buying the stuff they are selling, including wastage, or any staff costs, before covering the costs you state.
Any revenue is important, Grendel reminds up of FFP every hour or so in case we forget, but F & B income is not the biggest thing we need to concern ourselves with.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Agreed I have left all that necessary information out and glad you picked up on it, but I was merely highlighting how a figure of that size could be vital to the Football Club when you think that every penny is vital in this day and age of the sport.
However back to topic any rental deal (and I must admit I can't see us returning to the Ricoh under a tenancy agreement) would have to be inclusive to more revenues.
Although as I have previously stated what I would prefer the Club to do is purchase the Higgs Share of ACL for what it was originally sold for and rebuild that way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
That would be a good plan in my view, sadly it would appear unlikely.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
No idea, my only information on the details on both deals came from the link to the trust pages that were posted earlier. Also it was the first time I'd seen the details of the latest offer.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
It's a shame no one from the club/Sisu has yet explained why they didn't buy the Higgs share shortly after acquiring us or any time since.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The shares that the council view as worthless? These shares James?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The shares that Sisu are willing to lose 3 or 4 million a year to obtain? These shares Grendel?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Oh sorry forgot about the 2 million charitable donation as well!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. Shares that sisu offered money for that the council deemed worthless. James, why did the council view them as worthless?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
When did the council deem them worthless? And if they are worthless then why would Sisu want them?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They can't afford to buy it either.
Renting what you can't afford. ............. That's life !!!
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
And in reality it would take more like 8-10yrs to get a stadium built.. so far one year has passed and no land has been identified, just several possible sites, apparently..
Don't kid yourself, with the planning laws and shortage of land in the county it will take some time to deliver.
Look at Brentford for example, the land was bought in partnership with Barratt homes in 2008 and with considerable support from the council they only got planning in Mar 2014, so far a contract to build the stadium has not been granted to a contractor.
Lets face it any SISU plan is going to be fought tooth and claw by CCC and other interested parties, it doesn't matter what you think about the rights & wrongs of the situation, that is just the way it is likely to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
sisu appear to want to use coventry as a debt pit, ignore fans, they mean nothing,
sisu, it would appear, are here to play out a controllers petty private prejudice,
& raise a 2 fingered salute to the people of this city,
let's complain about a rent & then charge £1.8m for management,
imho, of course
sisu, it would appear, are here to play out a controllers petty private prejudice,
& raise a 2 fingered salute to the people of this city,
let's complain about a rent & then charge £1.8m for management,
imho, of course
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Does it matter what Sisu have been offered ?
Even if they where offered the unencumbered freehold they would reject it and ask for Tescos to be thrown in !!!
And then once Tescos was added to the deal they would reject it and say they also needed Harry Shaw.
Even if they where offered the unencumbered freehold they would reject it and ask for Tescos to be thrown in !!!
And then once Tescos was added to the deal they would reject it and say they also needed Harry Shaw.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Yes the 1.8m interest to Arvo is always conveniantly forgot or ignored !!!!
Astute
Well-Known Member
This is what we all agree on. The problem is that they don't want to pay for it. They have already lost more money than the Higgs share cost would have been by trying to get it cheaper. And the more money they lose by not negotiating the lower the price they need to pay.
It just isn't happening.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Ouch. Those words have come from somewhere. Any idea where?
Wasn't it where Deering was pulled up by the judge? The value of the shares being zero was a possibility, but only if everything went wrong and ACL went to the wall. But the SISU line was that the shares were worthless. And Joy had offered 2m as the money was to go to a charity. A typical move by SISU. Ignore all of the details and take out the little bit that sounds like what they want it to sound like and state it as the truth.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I don't hold out much hope for them at the JR if there case revolves around "good faith"
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
"Bleeding the club dry!"
"Using us as a cash cow!"
"Ripping us off!"
All quotes from your favourite troll, yet none are about our owners. Funny that.
Matty_CCFC
New Member
Am sure they would if told by the FL that they must return.
However, the only way that's going to happen is if not one City fan went into Sixfields, but that's not going to happen.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
The 1.8m interest does not make the £1.3m rent ok. No one has forgotten or ignored it. The fact is if we weren't such a loss making club we wouldn't need to borrow money to cover losses and we wouldn't be paying interest on loans.
The level of interest is unacceptable but so was the £1.3m rent.
Incidentally Man Utd spent £71m on interest charges, etc last year.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/18/manchester-united-record-financial-results
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
The 1.8m interest does not make the £1.3m rent ok. No one has forgotten or ignored it. The fact is if we weren't such a loss making club we wouldn't need to borrow money to cover losses and we wouldn't be paying interest on loans.
The level of interest is unacceptable but so was the £1.3m rent.
Incidentally Man Utd spent £71m on interest charges, etc last year.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/18/manchester-united-record-financial-results
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Would you take Utd's position over ours?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
A bit of a stupid question that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
A bit of a stupid question that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Not really, because you try and compare us to Utd by saying what you did. United can more than live with their debt charges, we cannot. So is yours not a stupid comment?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
No, he's saying that it isn't only Coventry City who pay interest on loans.
Saying high rent is ok but high interest on loans isn't is to put it midly being very selective.
And Utd can live with their debt charges as they get crowds of 70K and are one of the richest and bedt supported clubs in the world. Stupid.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Not really, just pointing out we're not the only club paying loan charges.
And as already said the high loan charges does not make the £1.3m rent ok. They're both too high.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Quick question for the less well informed/cant be arsed to read through all the threads - It was mentioned earlier on the thread that SISU winning the JR is likely to see them get the Ricoh on their terms. Am I wrong in thinking that this isn't going to be the case...the case is around whether CCCs £14m 'loan' was illegal or not?
Are some folk suggesting this because if the High Court confirms that the loan was illegal it merely gives SISU a better chance of obtaining the Ricoh complex, as opposed to defo getting it on the cheap?
Sore head this morning so excuse the naivety of my questioning...
WM
Are some folk suggesting this because if the High Court confirms that the loan was illegal it merely gives SISU a better chance of obtaining the Ricoh complex, as opposed to defo getting it on the cheap?
Sore head this morning so excuse the naivety of my questioning...
WM
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No, sisu winning the JR won't see them getting The Ricoh on their terms. If ACL have to pay back the loan, then there is nothing stopping them from going out and getting a loan from elsewhere albeit on worse terms.
Even if ACL go tits up the council own the freehold and have control of who gets the leasehold. If ACL were to go in to admin or up for sale there's nothing stopping another company buying them out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
No, sisu winning the JR won't see them getting The Ricoh on their terms. If ACL have to pay back the loan, then there is nothing stopping them from going out and getting a loan from elsewhere albeit on worse terms.
Even if ACL go tits up the council own the freehold and have control of who gets the leasehold. If ACL were to go in to admin or up for sale there's nothing stopping another company buying them out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nice one, cheers Stu. Why do some folk think that SISU winning the JR automatically entitles them to the Ricoh?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Maybe it is more to do with wishful thinking.
I have said many times that unless SISU have something massive that we don't know about there won't be damages payable. It can be proven that they weren't forced out of the Ricoh. They even stopped paying rent. What might happen is if someone has done something we don't know about SISU might be able to sue them. But that wouldn't pay for the arena