This rent row

Coventry City Chat!
Can *Insert current manager here* keep us up?
Has *insert whatever shite midfielder we have here* made a forward pass?
Keep up to date with Covenders!


Previous topicNext topic

Re: This rent row

Postby Des » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:37 pm

bidford_tom wrote:ACL are about to appoint new bankers (HSBC), part of the move includes refinancing the council bailout, their business plan is currently made up without CCFC as tenants and their business plan stands up.

They have in their cash flow projections half the money that the club owe.


How do you know this?
--
"I'm curvy, it's just the way I yam"
User avatar
Des
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:04 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby the boss » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:57 pm

Des wrote:
bidford_tom wrote:ACL are about to appoint new bankers (HSBC), part of the move includes refinancing the council bailout, their business plan is currently made up without CCFC as tenants and their business plan stands up.

They have in their cash flow projections half the money that the club owe.


How do you know this?



I told him :lol:
2014 will be our year !!
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby bidford_tom » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:14 pm

bidford_tom wrote:
ACL are about to appoint new bankers (HSBC), part of the move includes refinancing the council bailout, their business plan is currently made up without CCFC as tenants and their business plan stands up.

They have in their cash flow projections half the money that the club owe.


How do you know this?

The bank presented to the board last week, I know someone who was in the meeting.
iPad [ Post made via iPad ]
bidford_tom
Boot Scrubber
Boot Scrubber
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:32 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby AD » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:17 pm

The Yid wrote:
bolix wrote:
AD wrote:
With the FFP rules the club needs as much revenue as possible to afford higher wages, but the rent is a cost and therefore has no impact whatsoever on what wages we can afford. The revenue comes from the ticket sales, and the club already gets those. At this level of football we get some of the highest attendances and therefore should have among the highest revenues and money available for wages. If we're struggling to meet the FFP criteria whilst others aren't, this just shows our wages must be massively higher than most teams in this division, yet we're not at the top of the division. So the players are either underperforming, overpaid for their ability or both.


Has anyone in the "ACL are killing our club" camp actually bothered to understand this?

Probably not.


Perhaps before you make such an assumption - you should think about what you are quoting.

Where does it say in the FFP rules that ONLY ticket revenue is counted? Commercial revenue is also part of the calculation, and as Tim Fisher has said repeatedly - the club are happy to accept ACL's rent offer, but they want access to the additional revenue streams.

Clubs like Man Utd make a massive amount of their money commercially - this is why clubs are so keen to exploit the Asian market. Now we are not in that same league, but commercial revenue is significant to a club like ours - and we don't get it.

This is a big part of the argument - keep up.


Never said it was just ticket revenue.

Read halfway down

"Now ACL - which is owned by Coventry City Council and the Higgs Charity - have offered to cut the Ricoh rent to £400,000 each year.

The deal would also allow the club to keep match day revenue from food and drink and to repay its current debts over a period of 10 years."

So if the rent is OK, what's the problem? They want the matchday revenue - it's been offered. Seems there just being problematic doesn't it.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby The Yid » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:57 pm

No you didn't - but you were quoted completely out of context - hence my reply.

As for the deal - sounds reasonable (although a little high for L1) - so trying to think where the issue may lie.

Do you think it is 400K + matchday costs - or is that included. Is there disagreement over the details of the matchday revenue (relating to contract with Compass) or is it something else.

I do still think the rent is a bit high, but equally should we ever reach the Championship or even the Premier League again - it would be reasonable to expect the club to pay more.

I think both parties should agree to an independent arbitrator to sort this out - but has it gone too far now?
Image
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: This rent row

Postby bolix » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:34 pm

Yid, I agree, revenue streams wherever possible should be maximised and Sisu are trying to do this - fair play.
But AD's post highlights the link between gate receipts and FFP. Our gates are higher for us than majority of clubs but we're ninth in the league. His point therefore holds true - our players are too highly paid. Is that ACL's fault? Well, how the fuck could it be ? but they're "killing our club" The disconnect between sisu spin and reality is extraordinary. You'd have to be pretty gullible to buy it.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
Ken Dodd's dad's dog's dead
User avatar
bolix
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:54 pm
 
Prediction League Wins: 1



Re: This rent row

Postby AD » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:33 am

The Yid wrote:No you didn't - but you were quoted completely out of context - hence my reply.

As for the deal - sounds reasonable (although a little high for L1) - so trying to think where the issue may lie.

Do you think it is 400K + matchday costs - or is that included. Is there disagreement over the details of the matchday revenue (relating to contract with Compass) or is it something else.

I do still think the rent is a bit high, but equally should we ever reach the Championship or even the Premier League again - it would be reasonable to expect the club to pay more.

I think both parties should agree to an independent arbitrator to sort this out - but has it gone too far now?


As you say, I've no idea as to the details. Given that ACL said that they were offering rent of £150k per year whereas SISU have it at £400k suggests that there must be a discrepancy somewhere. I doubt either side would just tell a bare faced lie so that difference has to account for something, and the things that spring to mind are the matchday costs and rates. This may not be the case, but for me it's the most likely and logical explanation.

There may well be disagreements over the matchday revenue, but if the contract has been made then surely little can be done. I doubt SISU/CCFC would be happy if ACL decided to break its contract with CCFC and decided to give the stadium to a concert promoter on a matchday just because they wanted to.

The independent arbitrator is a good idea, but one that should have been suggested at the start by both sides. However if that were the case I think they'd find predominantly in favour of ACL. SISU's arguments regarding the clubs financial position, being in L1, average rates at other stadiums in this division and the stadium needing the club really won't hold sway. They're straw arguments with little legal basis for them to be grounded.

ACL can point out
- how much better this stadium is than those SISU compare it to
-use the rate they can hire the space out for concerts as a market rate
-that they can hold concerts in the venue as an alternative use for it
- point out that in a domestic/industrial rental dispute a person/company would be told to increase their income if they wanted to afford somewhere much better than everyone else, not be able to use what they earn as a determining factor in the rent they pay.
- the fact that there is a contract in place for the agreed rent which until renegotiated is owed in full.

And if an independent arbitrator finds ACL's offer to be fair, would SISU then just choose to ignore it because they're not getting what they want? Or the other way round for that matter? I don't think either side is now willing to budge from their position at all. But so far I'd say ACL have done more in trying to make concessions than SISU have (which appears to be nil)
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby billythefish » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:28 pm

And on and on it rumbles - both sides blaming each other.

Like a bad divorce there only seems to be one outcome and it isnt good for the fans stuck in the middle. Oh well wouldnt be the same for a Cov fan without these bad news stories. At least we have a game tonight to briefly take away the thoughts of impending doom. But can we score without Leon in the starting 11?
billythefish
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:00 am
Location: Normally on Sofa with keebab and lager.
 
Prediction League Wins: 2



Re: This rent row

Postby bolix » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:37 pm

Divorcees end up apart and poorer......sometimes homeless but with less baggage certainly.
BUT at least they can start over with a clean slate....... :idea:
User avatar
bolix
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:54 pm
 
Prediction League Wins: 1



Re: This rent row

Postby billythefish » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:39 pm

bolix wrote:Divorcees end up apart and poorer......sometimes homeless but with less baggage certainly.
BUT at least they can start over with a clean slate....... :idea:


Indeed hence the comment. Although on rare occasions there can be a last minute change of heart - seems less and less likely here. I wonder if SISU and ACL going on Jeremy Kyle would help?
billythefish
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:00 am
Location: Normally on Sofa with keebab and lager.
 
Prediction League Wins: 2



Re: This rent row

Postby AD » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:20 pm

Bob Ainsworth seems to have suggested in a parliamentary debate that SISU's idea of 'independent arbitrator' is 'get someone to look at the loan to ACL from the council allowing it to pay off the mortgage'.

Everything they do always points back to the same thing - they have no intention of making a fair deal and only want to extend non-payment of rent in its entirety until such time as ACL have cashflow problems and they can buy it on the cheap.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Previous

Return to CCFC Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Google [Bot] and 55 guests