Grendel
Well-Known Member
I knew you were keen on ACL but loving a faceless management company is taking it too far.
Goodbye CCFC and Sky Blues Talk (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluegaz2
- Start date
I knew you were keen on ACL but loving a faceless management company is taking it too far.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Actually I will apologise for the abuse, that was out of order. However I still totally disagree with the NOT ONE PENNY MORE stance and your defence of ACL rather than CCFC.
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem being able to separate ccfc and sisu unlike yourself !!!!
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
I couldn't resist coming back for one more post.
Thank you all for your kind words and concern over my health. ....... You all seem unconcerned that I have supported the City for over 50 years but more concerned that I am leaving the forum after "only 3 weeks" - those observant amongst you will be aware that my VERY FIRST POST was to ask the question "IS THIS FORUM PRO-SISU, BECAUSE IF IT IS, I DO NOT WANT TO JOIN". You have finally answered me.
I hope you will all be very happy in Timmie's Sky Blue Heaven........NOT
Ahem, pro/anti. This is a forum. We argue with each other. We call each other names. This is not unusual. Read some of the posts from the past 12 months and you may change your view of it being a pro SISU forum.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Joy is supposedly in charge of this branch of SISU. What does she look like?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
It is of course possible to dislike more than one faceless entity.
Astute
Well-Known Member
If this is the case how can anyone want SISU to be able to take charge of the Ricoh? Can anyone tell me how they can be trusted in any way other than destroying our club. They have done a good job of it since Operation Premiership. Now they have a 10 year plan
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
If this is the case how can anyone want SISU to be able to take charge of the Ricoh? Can anyone tell me how they can be trusted in any way other than destroying our club. They have done a good job of it since Operation Premiership. Now they have a 10 year plan
Operation Premiership was nothing to do with SISU.
I'm a little old fashioned and want my football club to own their own ground.
I also don't want to 'starve' the club of income as that is a sure way to destroy it.
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Really? Someone get me a violin and a bucket!
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
You've criticised me for being negative yet say that everything is, and pretty much always has been shit since you supported the City.
What else have you been in denial about?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Who are the nameless investors behind SISU?
Astute
Well-Known Member
So do we all.
Are you saying you trust SISU to own the ground? You don't think they would make yet another branch of our club which would own the ground? Would it be our club which owns the ground?
We all want CCFC to own their own ground. The problem is most of us don't trust SISU.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Been a problem from the start not knowing who really owns us from behind the scenes.
Not that most were at all bothered for years about it to be honest, nort would be bothered if another group of faceless investors took over from Sisu either.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
The point is, no one knows. You don't know, I don't know. They might make a mess or it or they might make a success of it. Unfortunately, there are some - yourself included - who say it will definitely be a disaster and so will fight against it. They write begging letters to ACL and to the Council stating "it will be a disaster". That gives Fisher and his cohorts more ammunition for moving away from the Ricoh. The NOPM campaign is equally counter-productive. The hysteria is fever pitch and it's not helping the club one bit.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And that's what people seem to ignore. Once SISU have gone the next lot of faceless investors will take their place.
I like this guys Idea, near the end,go to about 44 mins in ,he's on for about Five minutes "Henry Winters View."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01b6jnd
Astute
Well-Known Member
I have not said they WOULD make a mess of it. I said I am one of the majority that don't trust them.
If they got their hands on the Ricoh that would be it. No going back. They took us over to make money. Other than getting their hands on the Ricoh how will they make money on us? We don't even know who any of the shareholders are so nobody would have to answer to any questions.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
At the end of the day we want the same thing !!
Which is ccfc and the ricoh united under one owner agreed ?
Where we differ is that i don't believe sisu can achieve this. So in my eyes ccfc can't move forward until we get knew owners of ccfc.
Now i am personally didn't want it to come to starving the club of revenue but i can see no other way of getting sisu out !!!!
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
The point is, we don't trust SISU for a reason, y'know?! We haven't taken a dislike to them because they looked at us a bit funny once or because they always get us socks for Christmas. They lie, constantly-this we do know-and I'm certain that they don't give the slightest shit about the supporters or the club. Their end-game is to realise the potential value of the arena, but not to the benefit of CCFC, I am absolutely certain of that. I don't think NOPM is the slightest bit counter-productive as we've reached a stage under these owners which is utterly beyond recovery.
This should be the Solution ,the Government through the Culture Committee will legislate on this in the end.
Give the Ground to the Club Through a fans Trust ,Will SISU hang around then??
Find myself agreeing with the op. But I can't help continuing to log on for news. It's a good debate that has got us talking and the majority of the posts have been well argued. Looking at other forums the level of knowledge on this site has been remarkable. The only dispute is how we tackle the problem. Longing for the days to come back when posts are football and not football politics!
SkyBlueSwiss
New Member
Which is one of the reasons I have openly been against us being owned by a hedge fund since they first raised their greedy heads, and would be equally opposed to another bunch of faceless financial opportunists taking over. Their way of doing business has no place in football. This should have been clear before they became out owners.
I do not blame fans for this as they have no say in it anyway the way football is run in England. I blame the Football League, the Football Association and the Government for allowing what has happened to football in our country.
I also do not blame most fans for not understanding international finance and the court systems that hedge funds use/abuse to get their way. You cannot quite say that SISU act illegally because they push the edges of what is acceptable legally, but one can certainly state that they are immoral and they do not belong in football and they need to go as soon as possible.
(And I and many millions of others would say that hedge funds and other financial institutions have no place in our world at all given that they are majorly responsible for the financial catastrophies suffered by our world in recent years).
SkyBlueSwiss
New Member
Torch,
But are SISU not the first bunch of faceless investors to own us?
All our previous owners were known were they not? You might not have liked their ugly faces, and you might not have liked what they did to our club, but surely we knew who they were?
They certainly didn't need Greg Clarke to speak for them ,and State"Please don't tell them who we are", "With Our wealth they will demand we Buy players",I mean ,I ask you ,could you make that up.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I agree, but most revelled in the fact we were owned by a ruthless hedge-fund, and "balls of steel" Joy Seppalla was just what we needed to make sure we weren't pushed around.
Sisu and Seppalla haven't changed one jot from when they took us over and were supported by a huge majority.
To claim "we didn't know what they were like" like most do is plainly untrue.
I think the vast majority of people were nervous about a hedge fund taking over, however the majority felt that while they would be ruthless the only way for them to make money was to make us successful so they obviously had a plan for that and the fact that the only other option seemed to be administration meant the vast majority were supportive. All of these are perfectly logical views and there is good reason they were held by the majority.
It's also simply not true that people knew what they would be like, I think the vast vast majority of us have received a harsh lesson in just how cutthroat and ruthless business can be. People expected hard nosed business people who would make us sharp and efficient, get rid of overlapping jobs etc, people expected that we'd be able to stand up for ourselves well. I don't think many people if anyone expected 6(?) companies owning us, almost no one would have understood the arvo charge and it's implications. The fact that the vast majority of us still can't understand what sisus plan is or why they want to stay shows very clearly that people didn't understand what they were like to start with. No one expected them to run up debts to themselves seemingly for their own benefit, no one was expecting 10's of millions of pounds of interest and management fees. No one expected such outright barefaced lies to the supporter base. No one expected that seemingly against all financial sense they would think of moving the club out of the city. People expected smart people to be running the company, not short sighted people who have lost the club 10's of millions in order to save a few hundred k.
Most of us still struggle to understand how the system can be so broken that what sisu and arvo have done isn't illegal. It's ridiculous to suggest we knew what sisu would be like, ridiculous.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
It's all redundant after the event, but I can't help but notice some of those quickest to shout down all voices now are the same voices who were happy to call others morons for pointing out what we were letting ourselves in for.
Pointless in the immediate scheme of things, as it's better people realise ruthless investment funds aren't great later than not at all, but does give me concern that some of those self same people then shout down any message of caution about us not throwing ourselves at any old munter who appears on the scene during the breakup.
Or we might be here again in 5 years time, better to learn from the past and not throw ourselves at just anybody else, surely, but to have some belief in ourselves to deserve more than munters?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
It's ridiculous that people cheering on a hedge-fund didn't realise what they were cheering.
I'm giving people benefit of the doubt by saying that they knew what a hedge-fund was like when they cheered it.
You appear to be saying that they were just stupid.
Think you may be the one who's right on this one.
Blinded in Euphoria and Ignorance may be fairer.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Blinded in Euphoria and Ignorance sounds like a Muse track!
I think the majority had no say in the matter, were nervous about a hedge fund but chose to look on the bright side and support them. That seemed to be the sensible thing to do and actually remains the sensible thing to do if were to be given a new owner that we were nervous about. Support them until proven bad. Sure it would be better to have numerous options to chose from and we could pick the super rich fan with good business experience who wants to make the club great. But that isn't realistic.
It would be great to have choice and be able to make sure the new owners were great, but if that isn't an option I would take any unknown who may turn out to be a munter over the people who have proven to not only be munters but probably in the top 5 of the worst munters any english club have been saddled with. Since you voted that you were pleased that Otium were named the prefered bidder you obviously prefer the devil we know over someone who may or may not be a devil. I can't understand that. I accept the risk of out of the frying pan into the fire. But if I'm in a frying pan I'm jumping out, I'm not staying there because where I could be jumping might be bad too.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Not quite true.
Of the devils we didn't know, we knew full well who two of the devils backing one were. We had a man who was a property developer looking at a property investment, where ACL's preferred administrator cast doubt on his ability to buy both Ricoh and club. Furthermore, two of his backers have been on a board where we decided not to spend the money on the stadium but on players instead and, worse, one of them was on the board as we fell into catastrophic ruin and passed up the chance to own our own stadium anyway. As we did that, said person enthusiastically endorsed just about anybody involved in CCFC in the past, whether competent or otherwise.
As such, the alternative is a return to the disastrous failures of the past, and I cannot get past that. That would be a catastrophe for the club as much as the present owners in my book. Learn from the past, and when the past is a man who has sat on many boards as the club has crashed around him, being ever more optimistic in each new board member's ability to fix it, I cannot believe in his judgement. In fact, anybody he opposed would probably be a better bet, given his track record!
Couple that with the fact that any owners other than the present lot were buying half a company, and were subjecting themselves to the potential for litigation, chaos, and destruction then I don't see how that would help in the slightest.
So, as is the way, such things are narrow and without room to maneuvre, they expect a simple answer to a question that is not simple. Find me a replacement owner I can believe in, and I would get behind them. For a fleeting brief second it seemed Byng might actually be that man, but too many holes in his past and the confusion about his indicative bid or not.
So, when the 'right' alternative comes forward I will get behind them, but I will not get behind just anybody and close off the opportunity for better options to come forward, that would be slitting mine and the club's throat.
Of the devils we didn't know, we knew full well who two of the devils backing one were. We had a man who was a property developer looking at a property investment, where ACL's preferred administrator cast doubt on his ability to buy both Ricoh and club. Furthermore, two of his backers have been on a board where we decided not to spend the money on the stadium but on players instead and, worse, one of them was on the board as we fell into catastrophic ruin and passed up the chance to own our own stadium anyway. As we did that, said person enthusiastically endorsed just about anybody involved in CCFC in the past, whether competent or otherwise.
As such, the alternative is a return to the disastrous failures of the past, and I cannot get past that. That would be a catastrophe for the club as much as the present owners in my book. Learn from the past, and when the past is a man who has sat on many boards as the club has crashed around him, being ever more optimistic in each new board member's ability to fix it, I cannot believe in his judgement. In fact, anybody he opposed would probably be a better bet, given his track record!
Couple that with the fact that any owners other than the present lot were buying half a company, and were subjecting themselves to the potential for litigation, chaos, and destruction then I don't see how that would help in the slightest.
So, as is the way, such things are narrow and without room to maneuvre, they expect a simple answer to a question that is not simple. Find me a replacement owner I can believe in, and I would get behind them. For a fleeting brief second it seemed Byng might actually be that man, but too many holes in his past and the confusion about his indicative bid or not.
So, when the 'right' alternative comes forward I will get behind them, but I will not get behind just anybody and close off the opportunity for better options to come forward, that would be slitting mine and the club's throat.
