Pro-SISU / Anti-SISU (36 Viewers)

[lordsummerisle]

SBS76....
But never on the point in question, just "Digs" at me or whoever you don't like at that time!:jerkit:
There's another pound

You must have a right arm like Arnold Scwarzenegger.

 

---

[ajsccfc]

@ ajsccfc....I prefer to go along with the "Good old Oxford English Dictionary" way of spelling.

That's lovely, but it still means that you've criticised someone for false reasoning.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

MMM-The bottom line is that if the club were successful and pulling in crowds bigger than (at best) half the ground capacity, the discussion of rent would likely still not have reared its head. As it is, the club's own dire mismanagement has landed it in a lower division with crowds barely averaging 11k, giving it the premise now to argue that income is not sufficient to meet rental payments. At no point during SISU's Championship tenure was this deemed a problem which would lead most people to conclude that since Plan A of recouping investors' money (promotion to the top flight) failed, the new plan is to force acquisition of the Ricoh lease from ACL. ACL finds itself going toe to toe with a hedge fund that's been calling its bluff for the last 9 months-if the club is evicted, can 30-40 matches worth of revenue from the club per year be matched by alternate sports events? Personally I can't see it, which is the crux of Grendel's argument.

Grendel-As stated above and by yourself, the likely agenda TF has is ultimately to force ACL into a position of financial weakness which will enhance SISU's prospects of recouping more money through acquisition of the Ricoh lease. With this in mind, they also at least overtly have to be seen to be acting in the interests of the club-and whilst ACL's ability to replace lost money from booting out CCFC is in doubt, there is no doubt at all that CCFC has no long term future outside of the stadium. As such, playing hard ball by the club (and calling ACL's bluff), is at best an empty threat and at worst is gambling with its own survival.

I can see the merits in both sides here but really, if the club had been properly run from the get go we would not be having this discussion at all.

I'm obviously not going to argue with much of what you offer, as there's sense it in. ACL argue that they are viable, or best part viable without the football club. If that's the case, and they evicted the club and had free hand to hold more concerts, or host the occassional sporting event, then a status of marginal profitability would be solved. Now, that may or may not be the example I've shown with rugby games. It could be tumbling chimps for all I care. Point being that if the club were evicted - which they lawfully could be - and increased freedom to exploit the venue gives rise to ACL's profitability, then what next.

What Grendel can't or won't answer is 'what if'? He loves Fisher, but won't acknowledge that SISU's stance is putting the club's very viability and existence on the line. And can't, or won't answer what happens if their gamble with our club goes wrong?!?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I'm obviously not going to argue with much of what you offer, as there's sense it in. ACL argue that they are viable, or best part viable without the football club. If that's the case, and they evicted the club and had free hand to hold more concerts, or host the occassional sporting event, then a status of marginal profitability would be solved. Now, that may or may not be the example I've shown with rugby games. It could be tumbling chimps for all I care. Point being that if the club were evicted - which they lawfully could be - and increased freedom to exploit the venue gives rise to ACL's profitability, then what next.

What Grendel can't or won't answer is 'what if'? He loves Fisher, but won't acknowledge that SISU's stance is putting the club's very viability and existence on the line. And can't, or won't answer what happens if their gamble with our club goes wrong?!?

It's like asking what would happen to our views of SISU if we were PL champions come 2015. It's so unlikely that in his view it's not worth contemplating.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

You must have a right arm like Arnold Scwarzenegger.

Inside his secretary's blouse you mean?

 

[torchomatic]

The thing is, ACL can't just evict City and then say "Oh, I think we'll host some high profile rugby matches" or an FA Cup semi final or two. Even if the Ricoh was granted such "attractions" as rugby then it wouldn't be immediate it wouldn't be for a least two or three years and there's really nothing that ACL could feasibly fill the green bit with 52 weeks a year.

I'm obviously not going to argue with much of what you offer, as there's sense it in. ACL argue that they are viable, or best part viable without the football club. If that's the case, and they evicted the club and had free hand to hold more concerts, or host the occassional sporting event, then a status of marginal profitability would be solved. Now, that may or may not be the example I've shown with rugby games. It could be tumbling chimps for all I care. Point being that if the club were evicted - which they lawfully could be - and increased freedom to exploit the venue gives rise to ACL's profitability, then what next.

What Grendel can't or won't answer is 'what if'? He loves Fisher, but won't acknowledge that SISU's stance is putting the club's very viability and existence on the line. And can't, or won't answer what happens if their gamble with our club goes wrong?!?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It's like asking what would happen to our views of SISU if we were PL champions come 2015. It's so unlikely that in his view it's not worth contemplating.

Again, I'm not going to argue with that. But that stance follows on to acknowledge that here we have a 'negotiation' between one party that's got every right to evict and could have viability after doing so; and another who's lawfully in the wrong, and wouldn't have a home in which to fulfill their obligations - yet at the time time can reject offers of reconciliation or compromise.

I used to work in Japan - for the best part of 10 years. The company I worked for had a guiding mantra which translated to 'profit through fraud', or 'fraud through profit'. It doesn't translate exactly but both iterations work. In essence, it states that it's wholly reprehensible to use an unfair negotiating stance to the detriment of one's opponent. They meant by means of building a machine with bespoke components, then overcharging for spares when the customer has bought the machine and is over-a-barrel.

I think such a instance prevails here

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

@ ajsccfc...
I've criticised someone for trying to take the piss, by trying to be clever with words not usually used in everyday spoken English. He thought he was being "Holier than thou" but fell flat on his face....Anything else?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Again, I'm not going to argue with that. But that stance follows on to acknowledge that here we have a 'negotiation' between one party that's got every right to evict and could have viability after doing so; and another who's lawfully in the wrong, and wouldn't have a home in which to fulfill their obligations - yet at the time time can reject offers of reconciliation or compromise.

I used to work in Japan - for the best part of 10 years. The company I worked for had a guiding mantra which translated to 'profit through fraud', or 'fraud through profit'. It doesn't translate exactly but both iterations work. In essence, it states that it's wholly reprehensible to use an unfair negotiating stance to the detriment of one's opponent. They meant by means of building a machine with bespoke components, then overcharging for spares when the customer has bought the machine and is over-a-barrel.

I think such a instance prevails here

Which is countered by his argument that the rent is extortionate which justifies the action-and hence is the source of the disagreement. Personally I disagree with Grendel on the club's conduct as well and have argued it a few times myself.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The thing is, ACL can't just evict City and then say "Oh, I think we'll host some high profile rugby matches" or an FA Cup semi final or two. Even if the Ricoh was granted such "attractions" as rugby then it wouldn't be immediate it wouldn't be for a least two or three years and there's really nothing that ACL could feasibly fill the green bit with 52 weeks a year.

According to ACL it doesn't need to. One or two rugby matches, or the Rugby World Cup 2015, plus additional concerts would probably do it. And if it did, and they don't need the club; and they get so brassed-off with SISU's stance; what next? What if they took the view: we'll hold back on the winding-up order, but we'll evict on the grounds of non-payment of rent?!?

Would you think that unfair? And I don't want an investigation into ACL's finances here as we all know we're not party to the latest figures; but assume what they say is true and they're almost or are sustainable without football. What would you think of their actions in eviction given the current stand-off?

 

[torchomatic]

I wish someone would tell HP that then what with the price of their ink carts.

I used to work in Japan - for the best part of 10 years. The company I worked for had a guiding mantra which translated to 'profit through fraud', or 'fraud through profit'. It doesn't translate exactly but both iterations work. In essence, it states that it's wholly reprehensible to use an unfair negotiating stance to the detriment of one's opponent. They meant by means of building a machine with bespoke components, then overcharging for spares when the customer has bought the machine and is over-a-barrel.

I think such a instance prevails here

 

[ajsccfc]

@ ajsccfc...
I've criticised someone for trying to take the piss, by trying to be clever with words not usually used in everyday spoken English. He thought he was being "Holier than thou" but fell flat on his face....Anything else?

Yeah, but he didn't because the word you chose to pick out is actually fine. Criticising people for 'trying to be clever' or posts that aren't in layman's terms speaks volumes.

Let's do away with typing all together and record ourselves grunting and scratching.

 

[torchomatic]

As I said, these attractions wouldn't be immedaite. It would be great if the Ricoh got some WC 2015 matches, but that's two and a half years away, the odd concert during the summer is going to keep them going for very long.

As for the rent thing. I happy for the club to knock down ACL as much as they can, however I do think that CCFC should make at least an effort to pay something.

According to ACL it doesn't need to. One or two rugby matches, or the Rugby World Cup 2015, plus additional concerts would probably do it. And if it did, and they don't need the club; and they get so brassed-off with SISU's stance; what next? What if they took the view: we'll hold back on the winding-up order, but we'll evict on the grounds of non-payment of rent?!?

Would you think that unfair? And I don't want an investigation into ACL's finances here as we all know we're not party to the latest figures; but assume what they say is true and they're almost or are sustainable without football. What would you think of their actions in eviction given the current stand-off?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Which is countered by his argument that the rent is extortionate which justifies the action-and hence is the source of the disagreement. Personally I disagree with Grendel on the club's conduct as well and have argued it a few times myself.

'Extortionate'? Okay, interesting word. Let's say you went to a restaurant five times and you could afford it. You lose your job and your financial circumstances change, and you go back to the same place, with the same price list and suddenly it's extortionate? Nope; it's the same price it's always been.

In the normal world, you'd go somewhere else; more in-line with your pocket. In a football stadium, that's impossible; or best part thereof....

I'm more interested in the moral debate. In other words, the club's position - which you agree - to pay nothing is reprehensible. To then openly question finances even worse. So, what if the Ricoh simply evicted the club. Didn't execute the winding up order; just showed them the door; held more concerts, occasional rugby game, juggling pigs, I don't care. What would you then think of ACL?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I wish someone would tell HP that then what with the price of their ink carts.

I didn't work for HP! However, I agree to an extent. However, slightly tempered by the fact that the cartridges are on clear display when you buy the printers, and you'd accommodate such 'running cost' into your broader thinking. Unless you're the SISU bloke who completed Due Diligence on the club. Then you'd buy the HP printer, the Kodak cartridges and then pay for neither due to the fact that neither were compatible, nor an average printing cost for the other houses in your street...

 

[lordsummerisle]

Yeah, but he didn't because the word you chose to pick out is actually fine. Criticising people for 'trying to be clever' or posts that aren't in layman's terms speaks volumes.

Let's do away with typing all together and record ourselves grunting and scratching.

Oook?

A Terry Pratchett reference will probably lead to accusations of intellectual superiority now, though so would Dan Brown to some!

 

[lordsummerisle]

'Extortionate'? Okay, interesting word. Let's say you went to a restaurant five times and you could afford it. You lose your job and your financial circumstances change, and you go back to the same place, with the same price list and suddenly it's extortionate? Nope; it's the same price it's always been.

In the normal world, you'd go somewhere else; more in-line with your pocket. In a football stadium, that's impossible; or best part thereof....

I'm more interested in the moral debate. In other words, the club's position - which you agree - to pay nothing is reprehensible. To then openly question finances even worse. So, what if the Ricoh simply evicted the club. Didn't execute the winding up order; just showed them the door; held more concerts, occasional rugby game, juggling pigs, I don't care. What would you then think of ACL?

Lets say that you go to a restaurant 5 times, you pay the expensive prices, you then lose your job and your income goes down considerably, you can't now afford the expensive prices.

The restaurant keeps the prices at it's previous high level despite the only other customer it has coming in once every other Sunday, and you are no longer going to the restaurant, so it is now receiving a fraction of it's previous income.

The restaurant would adjust it's pricing to reflect the market it finds itself in if it can find nobody else to pay it's high prices.

25-50% of something is still better than a 100% of nothing.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Lets say that you go to a restaurant 5 times, you pay the expensive prices, you then lose your job and your income goes down considerably, you can't now afford the expensive prices.

The restaurant keeps the prices at it's previous high level despite the only other customer it has coming in once every other Sunday, and you are no longer going to the restaurant, so it is now receiving a fraction of it's previous income.

The restaurant would adjust it's pricing to reflect the market it finds itself in if it can find nobody else to pay it's high prices.

25-50% of something is still better than a 100% of nothing.

Okay; the restaurant also has a hotel and health spa. You were the best customer in the restaurant; but the hotel reckons it can earn enough income from the hotel and spa, and doesn't really need to open for food daily any more. It might be able to do much better from occasional weddings.

The restaurant might not alter it's prices to find the market price you elude to. It simply decides it doesn't want to serve that market any longer. Rather than simply argue with you about the 'fair rate', and given you don't pay your bills and are verbose after a few too many cheeky clarets - it may just decide it doesn't want 'your type' any longer

 

[psgm1]

Name 1 single venue that is similar to the Ricoh without a permenant tenant that is viable.

NEC
O2 Arena
nia

Basically all event atenas that can hold events all year round!

Ther original plan was to fit a roof to allow this to happen! Jag pulled out at last minute, so ACL was formed to allow the club to move in!

Had ACL not taken out the £20 mill to complete building cov would have been fooked!

Concerts are already profitable in the small jag hall, and when they hold the larger open air concerts.

If there was a roof, then the area currently the pitch could hold concerts all year round!

Why do you think SiSU wanted the site in the first place?

Ranson put forward the proposition of having a successful club AND a venue to hold concerts.

It went pear shape, when SiSU panicked and started cahing in on the players.

Initially under Ranson, there was a solid business plan, that was sustainable, and may well of worked!

Just look at the team Cov would have had if they stuck to the plan

Westwood
Keogh, tuner, Dann, Fox, Gunnarrsson, BiGi, Juke king. At the very least there would have been play off opportunities.

However, SiSU sold / released the best players, and gave long contracts to the likes of ROD Bell & Baker. Baker has had say 4/5 decent games, the other 2 have been quite ffrankly a disgrace.

Cov had a brilliant plan, and even despite Coleman, were starting to get somewhere. Then SiSU tried to cash in far too early. They didn't take up the option to buy the arena, and ultimately through their greed, have put city in the predicament they are now.

And then when you thought SiSU couldn't drag the club lower, they decide to blackmail ACL by not paying the rent, on the belief (rightly or wrongly), that ACL are totally reliant upon their rental income.

Had the previous directors done their homework on SISU, I suspect they would never have dwealt with them, but they too ran the club badly, and allowed SiSU to back them into a corner.

So when people go on about how SiSU "saved the club" or how we as fans need to support SiSU, just remember, that ultimately its SiSU by refusing to pay the rent, that has allowed even the possibility of ACL liquidating CCFC.

Whatever happens, SiSU can walk away from this mess and will be able to recoup any "losses". Cov fans cannot walk away from being cov fans. Fans invest something more than money - they invest passion.

SiSU are the current holders of the ccfc name. They have a duty to do whats best for that name. Brinkmanship like they are practicing puts everything at risk.

Think ON

 

[Grendel]

I don't know how you have the temerity to use the word 'selective', when you're still popping up here like Carol Vorderman on daytime TV, yet have dodged a direct question three times now. In fact, do you have any idea what 'selective' means!?!

Well at least Carol Vorderman knows something about statistics. I have answered the question -- you have just chosen to ignore the answer -- I'll be leaving Oxford soon. I did pass a rugby pitch on the way in and did go into the clubhouse -- they fancy paying at the Ricoh -- seemed a bit put off by the price though.

 

[Grendel]

Did you ask any real ones, or just shout at the troubled voices in your head? As the real ones would probably know they've already played games at the Ricoh and Milton Keynes......

So we know now that they have NOT played any games at the Ricoh through their own devices tut tut.....your simplistic notion the club can just move and play the odd game a season at the Ricoh is at best fanciful tosh. At the very best this would not happen this season and I have once again asked some more fans and they just say absolutely no chance. Far too big as a venue and too far to travel. Apparantly MK Dons is used very occasionally as a venue and the access from Northampton is considered just about acceptable. I know from experience travel time is about half that to Coventry. My company has a corporate hospitality box at the Ground and the club would lose some revenue if it moved.

It is not happening. I'll answer the "question" more directly if you wish. SISU have an obligation to their investors. They have wasted money on the project. If they decide that they cannot justify the bloated rent anymore and ACL will not budge we will shut down. I won't be laying the blame for that particular aspect of the tenure at their door.

So now answer my question. Name one venue that has an outdoor football or other facility that prospers without a permanant club as a major tenant. Name one.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So now answer my question. Name one venue that has an outdoor football or other facility that prospers without a permanent club as a major tenant. Name one.

That's a frankly stupid question. It's lie asking how many people called Colin live in Grimsby, with a limp, a Ford Capri and a tattoo of an ostrich; and think that wins a debate because I don't know of any.

ACL indicate they can break even without CCFC. Whether they have a football pitch, maypole or monster-truck track too makes no difference. In case you are struggling it means they can break even without CCFC.

That means, if they evicted CCFC and used to greater flexibility to earn ever greater revenue, via concerts, rugby or whatever; that further improves what already appears to be a break-even situation. Following me so far?

My question simply was; should they exercise their lawful right to evict us for non-payment of rent according to contract - how would you feel? And are you comfortable with SISU putting our club at risk?

But being the perennial SISU-apologist, I don't live in expectation of a candid response....

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Well at least Carol Vorderman knows something about statistics. I have answered the question -- you have just chosen to ignore the answer -- I'll be leaving Oxford soon. I did pass a rugby pitch on the way in and did go into the clubhouse -- they fancy paying at the Ricoh -- seemed a bit put off by the price though.

Hmmm.... no. My question - for the fourth time; of fifth if you look above now was quite explicit.

So, let me ask you again. Say they can. And they evict CCFC for non-payment of rent. How would you then explain away SISU's stance you so admire

What you've offered:

'As I have repeatedly stated I believe the club has been resoundingly ripped off for years. This from what I can see is the most undesirable arrangement any club has other than Walsall. We are the main tenant. ACL by offering a reduction of such a huge scale are admitting as such and the club has restricted access to other commercial benefits the venue attracts. If you really want my view the whole thing stinks. We have over-paid already by millions of pounds.'

That, I think we can all see, does not - my friend - address the question

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Hmmm.... no. My question - for the fourth time; of fifth if you look above now was quite explicit.

So, let me ask you again. Say they can. And they evict CCFC for non-payment of rent. How would you then explain away SISU's stance you so admire

What you've offered:

'As I have repeatedly stated I believe the club has been resoundingly ripped off for years. This from what I can see is the most undesirable arrangement any club has other than Walsall. We are the main tenant. ACL by offering a reduction of such a huge scale are admitting as such and the club has restricted access to other commercial benefits the venue attracts. If you really want my view the whole thing stinks. We have over-paid already by millions of pounds.'

That, I think we can all see, does not - my friend - address the question

ACL need our money so it won't come to that

Not just our rent but I guess they would lose a lot in sponsorship deals and I think the sponsorship for the name ends in a few years, I doubt that would be renewed without a sports club playing there every week

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

ACL need our money so it won't come to that

Not just our rent but I guess they would lose a lot in sponsorship deals and I think the sponsorship for the name ends in a few years, I doubt that would be renewed without a sports club playing there every week

Venues do get sponsors without sports activity dear chap. Remind me, what's that big tent next to The Thames?

 

[dongonzalos]

Hmmm.... no. My question - for the fourth time; of fifth if you look above now was quite explicit.

So, let me ask you again. Say they can. And they evict CCFC for non-payment of rent. How would you then explain away SISU's stance you so admire

What you've offered:

'As I have repeatedly stated I believe the club has been resoundingly ripped off for years. This from what I can see is the most undesirable arrangement any club has other than Walsall. We are the main tenant. ACL by offering a reduction of such a huge scale are admitting as such and the club has restricted access to other commercial benefits the venue attracts. If you really want my view the whole thing stinks. We have over-paid already by millions of pounds.'

That, I think we can all see, does not - my friend - address the question

Grendal to support this stance by SISU
You are effectively endorsing the eviction or winding up of CCFC.
If you are true fan of CCFC and only care about them as you claim to you should not care about who has shafted who. What is morally right.
You should just care about the quickest solution for us the fans.
That is a compromise from SISU

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Well done Torchy! You can take the piss........ but can't take it.:claping hands::claping hands::claping hands:
Diddums little wuss

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

SBK, psgm's nonsense at least comes without a flood of exclamation marks and smilies. Quit insulting other users and add something constructive.

 

[Grendel]

SBK, psgm's nonsense at least comes without a flood of exclamation marks and smilies. Quit insulting other users and add something constructive.

He adds a lot of "likes" to MMM's posts

Probably admires the medieval thesaurus type language.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Grendal to support this stance by SISU
You are effectively endorsing the eviction or winding up of CCFC.
If you are true fan of CCFC and only care about them as you claim to you should not care about who has shafted who. What is morally right.
You should just care about the quickest solution for us the fans.
That is a compromise from SISU

Funny thing is that Fisher has repeatedly stated a supposed respect for the fact that ACL's own financial obligations have to be taken into account in agreeing a compromise rent figure.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

He adds a lot of "likes" to MMM's posts

Probably admires the medieval thesaurus type language.

At least MMM offers fresh pastry along with his retorts. SBK take note: I'm peckish.

 

[lordsummerisle]

At least MMM offers fresh pastry along with his retorts. SBK take note: I'm peckish.

But doesl MMM deliver the pastry?

 

[Grendel]

But doesl MMM deliver the pastry?

Probably then charges you 6 times the asking price and tells you your only aloud to eat the crust.

Not sure I'd want a pastry from SBK. For some reason I have a vision of Steptoe when I think of him.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

But doesl MMM deliver the pastry?

It comes with an apology note from Thorn and a pile of crumbs.

 

[dongonzalos]

Funny thing is that Fisher has repeatedly stated a supposed respect for the fact that ACL's own financial obligations have to be taken into account in agreeing a compromise rent figure.

Yes you are right I have seen that a few times

Unfortunately he is taking them into account alright but not quite as people expected