Apparentl Joy threatens liquidation if half stadium is vetoed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter sotv1987
- Start date
mustaphasbeard
New Member
Oh dear......
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
coundonskyblue
New Member
Speaking of which, what is the latest with in rent situation?
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Don't know if it is true or weather I believe it but it definitely sounds like Joy an SISU to play God with the clubs existence
Bennets Afro
Well-Known Member
It makes no sense for joy to put the club in liquidation...
How can they get any return if we have no team??
How can they get any return if we have no team??
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I don't understand any of this.
What are the council doing to "safegaurd the football club"? Nothing I hope as they are surely not allowed to help private organisations with taxpayer money.
So please enlighten me what are they doing.
As for SISU they are answerable to investors - not supporters. The cold reality is they should commit to strategies that will only satisfy their investors. The reality seems to be they are so useless that they cannot do anything right to satisfy supporters or investors.
"Find somewhere cheaper to play" - what does that mean. So what does that mean? Pay the current rental price or leave I assume. Have you not considered the rental agreement is unsustainable? The club cannot afford it and it would almost certainly deter any potential investor. So if that is the case no-one is helping the football club at all.
Any organisations that depend on either council involvement or hedge funds are often doomed to failure.
We have both involved.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Leave him alone. It was on Planet Rock news today that Rush may quit touring. He's not himself.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's our only hope of becoming self sufficient and avoiding admin.
hill83
Well-Known Member
hill83
Well-Known Member
Do you fancy me torch? What part of your brain fails to grasp the fact that sisu don't give a monkeys for ccfc? As long as its not before next may duffy
But, and this is the bit you are failing to grasp, they do care about themselves.
And it is in their interest to sort this mess out.
I don't give a shit about the people I support at work, but it pays me to have a passing interest.
Last edited:
coundonskyblue
New Member
As much as I would love the club (not Sisu) to own half the ground, can someone explain to me as to how that will help the club in the current situation?
As has been pointed out on many occasions ACL cannot pay a dividend as it is still repaying the original building costs. Any owner of ACL, be it CCFC, the Council, or the Higgs trust will not be able to make any money from the Ricoh until the £20m loan is repayed.
hill83
Well-Known Member
They have been doing a shit job, I'm not a Sisu apologist, but you can't deny it is in their interests to sort it out.
Like I said before though, if this liquidation story is true and we start going down that route, I'll have the biggest flag you've ever seen.
So Sisu finally come out from beneath that stone and show themselves in their true colours......a rabble of bully boys with absolutely no class whatsoever.(think we all knew that anyway). So, the question now is; will their ownership of half the stadium move CCFC forward? From what I know and hear, the answer to that question is NO. Will it make CCFC more saleable?.......probably YES. We all now know where this shower of sh#te is coming from.
coundonskyblue
New Member
In fairness if their trying to buy the Ricoh in order to sell the club (and stadium) to a new owner then I would be delighted.
The day Sisu leave should be a local Public Holiday!
hill83
Well-Known Member
That is pretty much my thinking behind it.
Wrong on so many levels. I can't be bothered to go through it all.
1. the current rental agreement is in-line with others - not all, but others.
1a) The council spearheaded an offer of reduction (with behind the scenes agreements to invest in the team with the money saved) - SISU declined a mouth opening reduction in rent.
1b) The rent offered was way below most in League 1.
2) Re: "helping private organisations with tax payers money" - Coventry City is a 'community team'. The football club brings together people of all ages and more importantly, families and encourages people to unite for a common cause. If bringing communities together instead of hiding away (or worse, fighting each other) isn't deemed a good investment in tax payer money - shoot me dead. The argument that it's a minority for the town doesn't wash with me either - the council should be encouraging the growth of support - its good for all the people of Coventry.
3) If SISU truly know that they can get the club to become 'self-sustaining' - then where they do it is irrelevant. So why wouldn't they have a back up plan for a cheaper venue to play in if all else fails? If you couldn't afford the rent on your house - you wouldn't declare the "end of the world" - you'd simply move to a cheaper house.
Ask yourself this... They categorically state that they don't have the money to keep pumping into the squad and 'need' the club to 'break-even' - but they have the money to invest in half the stadium... that isn't currently making money.
Thus: Council helping the club. (albeit not as much as they could) & SISU=C**Ts
ThisManHere
New Member
Utter bollocks. As someone else said, this sort of thing (the finer details) will be highly sensitive and kept under wraps.
Could the area work without CCFC? Yes. Would the council want a massive football stadium just sat there doing nothing for 340 days a year?
Could the area work without CCFC? Yes. Would the council want a massive football stadium just sat there doing nothing for 340 days a year?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I'm rather embarrassed for you. It's not nice when someone humiliates themselves publically.
The penultimate paragraph exposes your ignorance. If they purchase a half share it will be through an outside investor who will see the benefit from such a move and certainly would be nothing to do with team investment.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
If this is true... At face value, SISU are C**TS for threatening liquidation, BUT if the council were to be veto this they to are C**TS.
I can see why they're giving the council the ultimatum, we're losing too much money and need this share in the RICOH.
Always the fans who have to suffer though!
I can see why they're giving the council the ultimatum, we're losing too much money and need this share in the RICOH.
Always the fans who have to suffer though!
Too late, that happened a good few years ago
coundonskyblue
New Member
<p>
Owning a share in the Ricoh will generate zero money for ccfc.
Owning a share in the Ricoh will generate zero money for ccfc.
I think you may only be half right.
It is true that in the short term the club will not gain any cash dividend but surely owning 50% of the lease should mean that any money paid in rent half of it contribute to the asset value.
So a bit like putting 50% into a savings account.
OSB may shoot this theory down though.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I'm not convinced it does but it must help with the asset side of the balance sheet and improve the net value of the club.
I'mARealWizard
New Member
Ok.
Something is definitely not right here.
I've read this entire thread VERY carefully.
There has been much discussion over Administration for SEVEN pages and there hasn't been one mention of Hoffman yet.
How can that be possible...? :thinking about:
Something is definitely not right here.
I've read this entire thread VERY carefully.
There has been much discussion over Administration for SEVEN pages and there hasn't been one mention of Hoffman yet.
How can that be possible...? :thinking about:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
bang bang
............. no not really i think you are right to a point .......... but it assumes that ACL make a profit, if it breaks even then the asset value doesnt change or if they lose money then the asset value goes down. Last figures showed ACL group made half a million ........... reduce the CCFC rent and that quickly diminishes unless other income is sourced. You also have to factor in the fact that the long lease is decreasing in value every year and if interest rates ever go up profits will be under a lot of pressure. So you could have the situation whereby the club own 50% of ACL, pay League average rent £150K and the value of the investment is going down, making the whole situation worse not better with income from ACL even further away
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
What about the debentures?????????????!
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I disagree, money generated off the share will help with cost of running club, buying players and will reduce our debts.
I think you, like some on here, are way too vehemently anti-SISU.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Think he might be a bit too busy now - it was announced yesterday that he's the new CEO of Hastings Insurance.
