What would happen if? (12 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

It then begs the question what liquidation would change.

Alright, I'll bite.

What it brings is release from the noose that's what's already there - i.e. debts and badwill, and in all probability a shocking difficulty in getting people to sponsor the club, and lend at favourable interest rates. Now of course some of the sponsor issues resolve themselves with new owners, but the current club has severe issues in that respect. Ask yourself, would *you* lend this club money?

So starting lower down = less cash needed to start up. Plus we probably actually could be self-sustainable initially, as our gates would be far in advance of our immediate rivals. We'd build momentum winning games, too... we'd become a good news story.

Meanwhile, without the pressure of fighting day-to-day, we could build the infrastructure back up. AFC Wimbledon have shown that can be done. So we start by renting the Butts (a realistic size) and (re) grow organically.

Liquidation allows a blank canvas.

We see enough on this board how those who don't see SISU as responsible for everything point to what the preious owners left us, i.e. debts and no assets. Well if SISU were to go we'd still have those. A new club would be free of the old's debts, and there'd be a fighting chance of local businessmen being able to fund improvements. Cov Utd show, even at a smaller scale than that which we'd do, how it's possible to incrementally upgrade the infrastructure each season - that's what we'd be doing.

And then when we did hit the league again, the momentum and good will from winning would mean we'd have a whole new energisd fanbase, that was optimistic, positive, and forward looking.

As for whether it'd be the same club? Wimbledon's is, Newport's is. If we go abroad, Fiorentina and Napoli are seen as the same club as those which went pop.

To my mind, the only cost, really, is plunging to a low level and having to come back up. Of course, if some of the failures of past boards were involved, there'd be a risk our fresh start would be wasted by shambolic management and decisions. But... the right people in charge. and this could be a chance to recapture the dynamic, enterprising, phoenix-like visions that Coventry is, has been, and will be.

We could be proud of our club again.

 

---

[Paxman II]

Because the potential of 30k for 20 games a season is a million miles away.

They don't need to actively seek anything, they have it anyway

So you as WASP would see that future potential slip away? Don't you have some smaller clients who may well be worth keeping because you may reap a larger reward later? I know I do all the time! Foolish not to guard the potential of a good meal. If it's miles away then ask Southampton the same question. SISU will not be the last owner of this cities football club. Harness what you have.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Foolish not to guard the potential of a good meal.

...even if it would then take business away from your own core?

Fact is, Wasps' needs and ours are commercially incompatible.

We should realise this, as this is how we got to this stage in the first place. It wasn't that ACL *wanted* to screw the club, more they *had* to.

 

[ceetee]

The question you should then ask yourself is why would they not actively seek the football clubs footfall of some potential 30+k for near 20 times a season? Sharing some would be far better than none of it right?
Furthermore when the football club reaches the giddy heights of the premier league what price the exposure for the Ricoh? The increase in the size of rent charged? The probability of a 32k crowd sell out for some 20 + games and the income that brings?
Simply put they would not want us to build another stadium when the current stadium is underused by them alone and turn away that kind of income potential even if they shared some of it.

I have asked myself that question and yes, ACL could do a 50:50 deal on the CCFC related revenues but the fact remains that. in the immediate seasons at least, the value of half of those revenues is not overly significant to either party, despite what SISU may have said in the past, and there may be more attractive options for Wasps/ACL on days when we might be playing there. An assumption that we might generate bigger gates with a more successful team does not carry much credibility under SISU and by the time they are gone, by the weight of opinion on this board, the club won't be big enough to play at the Ricoh even if it exists.

 

[Paxman II]

Alright, I'll bite.

What it brings is release from the noose that's what's already there - i.e. debts and badwill, and in all probability a shocking difficulty in getting people to sponsor the club, and lend at favourable interest rates. Now of course some of the sponsor issues resolve themselves with new owners, but the current club has severe issues in that respect. Ask yourself, would *you* lend this club money?

So starting lower down = less cash needed to start up. Plus we probably actually could be self-sustainable initially, as our gates would be far in advance of our immediate rivals. We'd build momentum winning games, too... we'd become a good news story.

Meanwhile, without the pressure of fighting day-to-day, we could build the infrastructure back up. AFC Wimbledon have shown that can be done. So we start by renting the Butts (a realistic size) and (re) grow organically.

Liquidation allows a blank canvas.

We see enough on this board how those who don't see SISU as responsible for everything point to what the preious owners left us, i.e. debts and no assets. Well if SISU were to go we'd still have those. A new club would be free of the old's debts, and there'd be a fighting chance of local businessmen being able to fund improvements. Cov Utd show, even at a smaller scale than that which we'd do, how it's possible to incrementally upgrade the infrastructure each season - that's what we'd be doing.

And then when we did hit the league again, the momentum and good will from winning would mean we'd have a whole new energisd fanbase, that was optimistic, positive, and forward looking.

As for whether it'd be the same club? Wimbledon's is, Newport's is. If we go abroad, Fiorentina and Napoli are seen as the same club as those which went pop.

To my mind, the only cost, really, is plunging to a low level and having to come back up. Of course, if some of the failures of past boards were involved, there'd be a risk our fresh start would be wasted by shambolic management and decisions. But... the right people in charge. and this could be a chance to recapture the dynamic, enterprising, phoenix-like visions that Coventry is, has been, and will be.

We could be proud of our club again.

The last sentence says it all. The "right people in charge". There is no guarantee it would be different in some obscure league either yet you are willing to chance? Our plight is SISU right now. Get them gone and we are already in league 1 and all the things you just said can apply from that base.
There are many fans including me who at my age would not want a further slide into obscurity for a decade with no guarantee of getting back to even the level we are at now.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

There is no guarantee it would be different in some obscure league either yet you are willing to chance?

So you choose to ignore the rest, which mitigates the risk?

 

[Paxman II]

I have asked myself that question and yes, ACL could do a 50:50 deal on the CCFC related revenues but the fact remains that. in the immediate seasons at least, the value of half of those revenues is not overly significant to either party, despite what SISU may have said in the past, and there may be more attractive options for Wasps/ACL on days when we might be playing there. An assumption that we might generate bigger gates with a more successful team does not carry much credibility under SISU and by the time they are gone, by the weight of opinion on this board, the club won't be big enough to play at the Ricoh even if it exists.

Study WASP turnover and expenditure and their path to sustainability. The Ricoh is in dire need of upgrades and a lot of general required maintenance a matter of huge expenditure alone that has already been ignored too long. There are many, many mitigating factors here that make a deal with the football club a positive.

 

[Brylowes]

There is a difference between wanting and expecting. There is nothing to say we should expect to be challenging in the Championship, unless we get an owner who is going to throw millions in to try and chase the dream.

I want to be there, we can't expect it though can we and get annoyed that we aren't?

The thing is Nick, history tells us the league tables and a clubs position within it Can tell you
a lot about a club, whichever club that maybe.
It generally comes down too a clubs ability to make money, which usually depends on the
Catchment area it represents, not just its size but its social standing as well, what with the
Game tradionaly being a working class pass time.

The top divisions are made up of clubs representing large post-industrial Cities and towns,
While the lower divisions are made up of clubs representing smaller towns not traditionally
Known as hotbeds of football.
Though of course there are exceptions of which we are one, we represent a fairly large
Post-industrial working class City, supporters of this club are right to expect championship
Football at least. Dropping down for a season or two would be bearable, but to go down
Stay down and even begin to accept it is just wrong.

Our hapless owners have made this happen, no one else, and the real worry is they ain't
Finished yet, I dread to think where we will be when they finally give up and fuck off.

 

[Liquid Gold]

If you want to support a Coventry team in the lower leagues with no debt then go and support Cov Utd or Sphinx. If CCFC was liquidated then the team that's in the lower league will not be the same one.

 

[ceetee]

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a deal between Wasps/ACL and CCFC for CCFC to continue playing at the Ricoh. It's the only credible option. (I'm sure someone will come up with other suggestions but that's why I say credible). I'm not generally in disagreement with you only your point about shared revenues.

But what you are saying is that ACL need to increase revenues to pay for essential works means that they will decide what's best for them.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

If you want to support a Coventry team in the lower leagues with no debt then go and support Cov Utd or Sphinx. If CCFC was liquidated then the team that's in the lower league will not be the same one.

Not convinced that Otium Entertainment Group Ltd, trading as Coventry City FC, is the same one either...

In fact they say themselves it's the "successor company".

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

I reckon because we are so angry about being a mid table League 1 club we should go bust, make a new club with the aim of getting into the football league one day. That makes sense.

Are you real? have you looked at the league table recently?

 

[dongonzalos]

How would that work?

Wouldn't sorry

 

[Liquid Gold]

Not convinced that Otium Entertainment Group Ltd, trading as Coventry City FC, is the same one either...

In fact they say themselves it's the "successor company".

If it's not CCFC why are you following them then?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

If it's not CCFC why are you following them then?

It's a good question. Why the hell am I following them? One I ask quite a lot recently...

The point being, it's as much CCFC as any other continuation of it, even if the company is different.

To me.

And frankly, being Otium-ised has made it less CCFC... to me... than if we'd gone bust and had to start again as per Fiorentina or Napoli.

 

[shmmeee]

Not the same thing, only 1 of the group of companies were liquidated.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

It is the same thing though. Just like we were for all intents and purposes a new club when the Premier League started up (IIRC, may be wrong but I thought a new company was formed then).

We've had this discussion before and I doubt we'll agree, but the fact is we are like the ship of Theseus: every part of the club has been changed since it's formation, name, kit, business running it, fans, owners, stadium, players, etc. etc. etc.

The idea that "Oh, if this specific part I've identified goes, then there's no point" is melodramatic nonsense. If you haven't already stopped supporting us on principle already, you'll have no reason to in the future. Just say "I don't fancy lower league football", because that's what you (one) mean.

By all means have a discussion about whether it'll sort our problems, or whether it's worth it, but don't pretend the club isn't a social construct that we decide on.

 

[Liquid Gold]

The point being, it's as much CCFC as any other continuation of it, even if the company is different.

To me.

And frankly, being Otium-ised has made it less CCFC... to me... than if we'd gone bust and had to start again as per Fiorentina or Napoli.

But if we were liquidated then we wouldn't be CCFC we'd be AFC Coventry or something. Ownership through holding companies has changed plenty of times, even before sisu were here, liquidation wouldn't have that same continuation. We are still the same club that was formed in 1883 as Singers FC, Coventry City since 1898, been in the football league since 1919 and won the FA Cup in 1987, you can trace our league position back through history and we are the same entity. If we were liquidated then we'd just be new club formed 2016 or whatever, all the rest would be dead, I'm not prepared to take that at all.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But if we were liquidated then we wouldn't be CCFC we'd be AFC Coventry or something. Ownership through holding companies has changed plenty of times, even before sisu were here, liquidation wouldn't have that same continuation. We are still the same club that was formed in 1883 as Singers FC, Coventry City since 1898, been in the football league since 1919 and won the FA Cup in 1987, you can trace our league position back through history and we are the same entity. If we were liquidated then we'd just be new club formed 2016 or whatever, all the rest would be dead, I'm not prepared to take that at all.

It ain;t the holding company though.

Coventry City FC *is* Otium Entertainment Group Ltd.

That's their name now. Otium don't own us, they *are* us. The club that was formed at that point of our foundation as Coventry City has been liquidated (or should have been!)

 

[oldskyblue58]

liquidation = extinction, it is not a path to something else it is an end

 

[stupot07]

It is the same thing though. Just like we were for all intents and purposes a new club when the Premier League started up (IIRC, may be wrong but I thought a new company was formed then).

We've had this discussion before and I doubt we'll agree, but the fact is we are like the ship of Theseus: every part of the club has been changed since it's formation, name, kit, business running it, fans, owners, stadium, players, etc. etc. etc.

The idea that "Oh, if this specific part I've identified goes, then there's no point" is melodramatic nonsense. If you haven't already stopped supporting us on principle already, you'll have no reason to in the future. Just say "I don't fancy lower league football", because that's what you (one) mean.

By all means have a discussion about whether it'll sort our problems, or whether it's worth it, but don't pretend the club isn't a social construct that we decide on.

Tbf that's not what I meant, and perhaps I misinterpreted your email. I thought you were implying we wouldn't go bust and thrown out of the league if we get liquidated as we didn't last time. From this follow up I can see that's not what you were implying.

As OSB says liquidation = extinction and starting over again much further down the pyramid, I was just saying that was different to the liquidation of ccfc ltd


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Liquid Gold]

It ain;t the holding company though.

Coventry City FC *is* Otium Entertainment Group Ltd.

That's their name now. Otium don't own us, they *are* us. The club that was formed at that point of our foundation as Coventry City has been liquidated (or should have been!)

But if some rich nutcase bought us he can change that, its not inseparable from the club. The company that *is* us could be called 'shitty shit team always shit' so long as the team was called Coventry City

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But if some rich nutcase bought us he can change that, its not inseparable from the club. The company that *is* us could be called 'shitty shit team always shit' so long as the team was called Coventry City

So then, much as Firoentina still exist, Napoli still exist, Wimbledon still exist... we can still exist.

Nuneaton go through chameleon-like shifts every few years. They've been Town, borough, Town. Don't be surprised if they end up Borough soon enough... in much the same way as VS Rugby have borrowed an old club's name lately, or Bradford Park Avenue. The latter two are far more of a sleight of hand, FWIW, as neither has a direct link with the original club (bar fans that crossed over) and weren't original start-ups. Newport County are back in the league, having reclaimed their name, their place in the town, their place in the right country(!) It wasn't easy for them, but it happened.

Coventry City can still exist, even if it has to be known, officially, as Coventry City Care in the Community. It's still Coventry City.

Much as Otium Entertainment Group is Coventry City.

 

[oldskyblue58]

By my reckoning CCFC accounts for £300k in rent and expenses and around £500k in F&B turnover in the total turnover of Wasps Holdings. That is less than 3% of their total turnover.

Now CCFC could negotiate access to more income, certainly the CCFC match day part, but the sting that will come with that is that they will also have to carry an equivalent share of the costs. So whilst Turnover would increase the actual additional cash available will be nothing like as much. Plus SCMP is based on the income after deducting the associated direct costs x 60%

 

[stupot07]

By my reckoning CCFC accounts for £300k in rent and expenses and around £500k in F&B turnover in the total turnover of Wasps Holdings. That is less than 3% of their total turnover.

Now CCFC could negotiate access to more income, certainly the CCFC match day part, but the sting that will come with that is that they will also have to carry an equivalent share of the costs. So whilst Turnover would increase the actual additional cash available will be nothing like as much. Plus SCMP is based on the income after deducting the associated direct costs x 60%

Yep, makes total sense. What ever they give us on one hand will be taken away with the other. The idea wasps will throw cash/revenues at us on the off chance we might get to the PL and they can reap the benefits is rediculous, especially given they're losing £4m pa themselves.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Liquid Gold]

So then, much as Firoentina still exist, Napoli still exist, Wimbledon still exist... we can still exist.

Nuneaton go through chameleon-like shifts every few years. They've been Town, borough, Town. Don't be surprised if they end up Borough soon enough... in much the same way as VS Rugby have borrowed an old club's name lately, or Bradford Park Avenue. The latter two are far more of a sleight of hand, FWIW, as neither has a direct link with the original club (bar fans that crossed over) and weren't original start-ups. Newport County are back in the league, having reclaimed their name, their place in the town, their place in the right country(!) It wasn't easy for them, but it happened.

Coventry City can still exist, even if it has to be known, officially, as Coventry City Care in the Community. It's still Coventry City.

Much as Otium Entertainment Group is Coventry City.

I guess it comes down to interpretation, thats why it's such a difficult and emotive issue. For you a new team playing in Coventry playing in Sky Blue is enough. For me it has always been, and will always be, about this particular club and it would be very very unlikely that I ever supported any new team. As much as CCCITC might be CCFC to you, it won't actually be CCFC, officially and in some peoples eyes. Many people on this thread have said they wouldn't support the new team and the Coventry public in general is terrible at turning out regularly, how would this new club succeed with a large chunk of the fan base not recognising it as legitimate.

 

[lifeskyblue]

I would support a new team if they were Coventry Singers or SB Coventry (Sky Blues of Coventry) and were seen by fans as the fans inheritors of the tradition that was CCFC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I guess it comes down to interpretation, thats why it's such a difficult and emotive issue. For you a new team playing in Coventry playing in Sky Blue is enough. For me it has always been, and will always be, about this particular club and it would be very very unlikely that I ever supported any new team. As much as CCCITC might be CCFC to you, it won't actually be CCFC, officially and in some peoples eyes. Many people on this thread have said they wouldn't support the new team and the Coventry public in general is terrible at turning out regularly, how would this new club succeed with a large chunk of the fan base not recognising it as legitimate.

I'd say a phoenix club would be more about capturing and energising new fans than the likes of you and me.

Of course it'd lose some, all kinds of things lose some. It can range from signing Marlon to becoming Otium, to just losing a game or two. All manner of things lose fans. It's never my place to say this is what CCFC is to you, because it's bound to be different to me... and so on.

I'd say a team done right could be the best thing for a younger generation however, it could be an event.

And frankly, I find it inevitable. Ever since McGinnity and Robinson sold the family silver, it's been inevitable barring a miracle of league performance... and Blackpool have shown if the foundations aren't there, that miracle doesn't last long anyway.

So if it were to be done, 'tis best it were done quikcly. Then again, I've always been of the view I'd rather go the Dignitas route when I get old...

 

[Liquid Gold]

I'd say a phoenix club would be more about capturing and energising new fans than the likes of you and me.

Of course it'd lose some, all kinds of things lose some. It can range from signing Marlon to becoming Otium, to just losing a game or two. All manner of things lose fans. It's never my place to say this is what CCFC is to you, because it's bound to be different to me... and so on.

I'd say a team done right could be the best thing for a younger generation however, it could be an event.

And frankly, I find it inevitable. Ever since McGinnity and Robinson sold the family silver, it's been inevitable barring a miracle of league performance... and Blackpool have shown if the foundations aren't there, that miracle doesn't last long anyway.

So if it were to be done, 'tis best it were done quikcly. Then again, I've always been of the view I'd rather go the Dignitas route when I get old...

But the young generation are increasingly interested in the sky sports madhouse. How would you tempt them by playing on the memorial park

 

[oldskyblue58]

CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd were both liquidated.

CCFC Ltd only after administration. CCFC H Ltd only after the owners had legitimately made it a shell with nothing in it. Both events were controlled by SISU for a defined purpose

Otium is the new not original CCFC - in fact it is Otium trading as CCFC. Mute point as to whether all the history, memories etc can be transferred to an entirely new entity, we all have our own thoughts I am sure. There is no direct link back to the original company that was formed from the original team other than the use of a name to trade by.

The real history exists with the fans, always has and always will.

If Otium were to be liquidated without the name being sold/transferred to another entity then CCFC as a brand dies with it

For the life of me I can not see why SISU would liquidate the Company at the moment though, because that gives no prospect of getting anything back. Should they sell Ryton, then they could I suppose before replacing the training ground, but even so it would be worth it to them to sell what is left for a million or two. Aside from the Ryton the only real value is having the Golden Share and you relinquish that with an insolvency event (administration or liquidation) why would they take that course to devalue what is left further?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But the young generation are increasingly interested in the sky sports madhouse. How would you tempt them by playing on the memorial park

Get the Butts, get a core (I'd reckon 3,000 wouldn't be unrealistic to begin with) and matches become packed, with a good atmosphere. When they're constantly sold out they become an event, so people then buy tickets well in advance as they don't want to miss out.

Forgetting the level, winning football with goals will make heroes of players and make for something to energise and get enthusiastic about plus, as we know, when it's good there's nothing to beat actually being there. Part of the problem we have now is that we're so shit, the Ricoh's so soulless, and we're so lost within it that, well... Sky looks appealing, doesn't it!

Ultimately football's a social thing. Most (all?) of us started as much because people we knew went up, and if it's actually fun and you're part of an atmosphere, you're more likely to continue.

So then improve the Butts incrementally, gates can rise to their current levels but, it's a pent-up demand we have there, much as Brighton did at the Withdean. As th club's now running on a proper long term model it does what Wimbledon have done and seeks to build its own better stadium, so allowing that pent-up demand to be unleashed.

 

[wingy]

If it's not CCFC why are you following them then?

Exactly!

 

[Nick]

Alright, I'll bite.

What it brings is release from the noose that's what's already there - i.e. debts and badwill, and in all probability a shocking difficulty in getting people to sponsor the club, and lend at favourable interest rates. Now of course some of the sponsor issues resolve themselves with new owners, but the current club has severe issues in that respect. Ask yourself, would *you* lend this club money?

So starting lower down = less cash needed to start up. Plus we probably actually could be self-sustainable initially, as our gates would be far in advance of our immediate rivals. We'd build momentum winning games, too... we'd become a good news story.

Meanwhile, without the pressure of fighting day-to-day, we could build the infrastructure back up. AFC Wimbledon have shown that can be done. So we start by renting the Butts (a realistic size) and (re) grow organically.

Liquidation allows a blank canvas.

We see enough on this board how those who don't see SISU as responsible for everything point to what the preious owners left us, i.e. debts and no assets. Well if SISU were to go we'd still have those. A new club would be free of the old's debts, and there'd be a fighting chance of local businessmen being able to fund improvements. Cov Utd show, even at a smaller scale than that which we'd do, how it's possible to incrementally upgrade the infrastructure each season - that's what we'd be doing.

And then when we did hit the league again, the momentum and good will from winning would mean we'd have a whole new energisd fanbase, that was optimistic, positive, and forward looking.

As for whether it'd be the same club? Wimbledon's is, Newport's is. If we go abroad, Fiorentina and Napoli are seen as the same club as those which went pop.

To my mind, the only cost, really, is plunging to a low level and having to come back up. Of course, if some of the failures of past boards were involved, there'd be a risk our fresh start would be wasted by shambolic management and decisions. But... the right people in charge. and this could be a chance to recapture the dynamic, enterprising, phoenix-like visions that Coventry is, has been, and will be.

We could be proud of our club again.

That just depends on how much of it is CCFC surely? It might be something like AFC Coventry City or something like that, the history is completely gone and it is starting from scratch which wouldn't be too much different to going to support Cov United or Sphinx. It wouldn't be the same team that people grew up supporting, that their dads supported etc etc.

It's a different scenario to if for example it was "Right, SISU you have to piss off and to clear the debts Coventry City need to drop the conference for a new start" type thing where it would still be Coventry City.

I'd love nothing more than some decent local businessmen to come in and build from the ground up, if it was Coventry City then if they came in with a plan and said how it means it is going to be shit for 4 or 5 years while they build the infrastructure then it would be more than worth it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It might be something like AFC Coventry City or something like that, the history is completely gone

Did it stop Wimbledon winning the FA Cup? Did Newport stop playing in the Cup Winner's Cup and reaching the quarter final? Did Napoli no longer have years of Maradona gracing their team?

 

[Nick]

Did it stop Wimbledon winning the FA Cup? Did Newport stop playing in the Cup Winner's Cup and reaching the quarter final? Did Napoli no longer have years of Maradona gracing their team?

It wouldn't mean Coventry City didn't win the FA cup, but it still wouldn't be Coventry City I was watching so I don't think it would feel the same. I don't jump around like a mentalist if I watch another team play and they score.

I can see the appeal of having a local club, with decent local owners with ambition etc but then may as well just support Cov United if that's what it's about.

A new team in the lower leagues would be different to me than if CCFC got chucked down there.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

but it still wouldn't be Coventry City I was watching

...and so we go back to the circular Otium Entertainment Group argument.