Breaking news: Acl call off rent talks (5 Viewers)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

@MMM

If I were you I wouldn't bother continuing to present an argument based on facts & research against posters who simply ignore any reasonable statement.
In my opinion they're not trying to debate, they are just being contrary to wind you up.
Its up to them to prove you wrong.. lets face it they won't be able to nor will they even try to.

True. I guess if I'd have childishly supported a regime and policy line that saw us through contractual illegality and took the club to the doorstep of ceasing to exist; I'd be wanting to hijack a relevant thread and divert it back to split hairs with regards issues one year old

 

---

[lordsummerisle]

@MMM

If I were you I wouldn't bother continuing to present an argument based on facts & research against posters who simply ignore any reasonable statement.
In my opinion they're not trying to debate, they are just being contrary to wind you up.
Its up to them to prove you wrong.. lets face it they won't be able to nor will they even try to.

He has not yet given one "fact" to prove his point.

He has already been proved to be wrong, ignoring that doesn't make it true.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

He has not yet given one "fact" to prove his point.

He has already been proved to be wrong, ignoring that doesn't make it true.

Audited accounts from teams the season before; which wouldn't have changed significantly due to lengths of contract?

I can see you'd rather split hairs than see reason so I'll leave you to your own deliberations in that one.

Unless you can prove I'm wrong though?!?

 

[Grendel]

@MMM

If I were you I wouldn't bother continuing to present an argument based on facts & research against posters who simply ignore any reasonable statement.
In my opinion they're not trying to debate, they are just being contrary to wind you up.
Its up to them to prove you wrong.. lets face it they won't be able to nor will they even try to.

Ha ha ha. Tell me one fact. It's just supposition, this actually if you bother to track back started backyard of a constant assertion by MMM that mcgoldrick was offered £10,000 a week. This was based on research which actually turned out to be a post by sky blue Taylor.

I know he is in your little gang when it comes to throwing rocks at the owners whilst sucking up to every word the council says but this really is a new low.

Embarrassing.

 

[Grendel]

Again - and I can't see what's so difficult to take in - it's an example.

In actuality, the additional income ACL need, if at all; above and beyond their current non-footballing fare, may be ooccasional events such as the Olympics or the Rugby World Cup, Davis Cup tennis, Heineken Cup rugby, Mystic Meg, dancing dogs or cup-cake making contests for all I care.

It's an example set about an irrelevance; as given ACL's accounts are being filed this week, their auditor must have faith in their ongoing lilivelihood and that'll do me over trying to persuade these who don't want to see reason

How much faith do you think the auditor would have had of the land owner didn't buy out the loan?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

As far as MMM's arguments go:

1. 'A club's finances are the main driver for their league position'. Surely can't be disputed; would Man City have won the league last year without having insane wealth behind them? Unlikely. Take a look at the Championship this season too-Cardiff, constantly spending more than they've got, are ahead by 10 points with the likes of Leicester not far behind who spend just as much. Palace have sold players for big money so can justify extra spending through that.

2. 'Northampton could feasibly relocate to the Ricoh and compensate for the club not being there'-Not especially relevant as the club aren't going anywhere.

3. 'The club's management are the ones responsible for the current predicament'-Not really in dispute amongst those of us capable of removing Sky Blue tinted glasses. You can trace it all the way back to Richardson pocketing cash from the HR sale, to McGinnity selling our stake in ACL to pay off Richardson's debt, through to relegation to the third tier resulting virtually direct from horrendous boardroom leadership and the appointment of a buffoon as manager. Were this club still in the Championship, FFP would simply dictate that a maximum of £4m in losses can be funded in loans from the owners-this is wholly different to the FFP requirements in League 1.

We have less revenue because poor boardroom management got us relegated and drove down attendances (alongside commercial revenue losses)-and resorted to breaking a legally binding agreement despite having a perfectly reasonable offer on the table. Fisher is playing roulette with the club's future and has been doing ever since he initiated this rent boycott-and yet some here have taken his word as gospel. Ludicrous.

 

[Grendel]

As far as MMM's arguments go:

1. 'A club's finances are the main driver for their league position'. Surely can't be disputed; would Man City have won the league last year without having insane wealth behind them? Unlikely. Take a look at the Championship this season too-Cardiff, constantly spending more than they've got, are ahead by 10 points with the likes of Leicester not far behind who spend just as much. Palace have sold players for big money so can justify extra spending through that.

2. 'Northampton could feasibly relocate to the Ricoh and compensate for the club not being there'-Not especially relevant as the club aren't going anywhere.

3. 'The club's management are the ones responsible for the current predicament'-Not really in dispute amongst those of us capable of removing Sky Blue tinted glasses. You can trace it all the way back to Richardson pocketing cash from the HR sale, to McGinnity selling our stake in ACL to pay off Richardson's debt, through to relegation to the third tier resulting virtually direct from horrendous boardroom leadership and the appointment of a buffoon as manager. Were this club still in the Championship, FFP would simply dictate that a maximum of £4m in losses can be funded in loans from the owners-this is wholly different to the FFP requirements in League 1.

We have less revenue because poor boardroom management got us relegated and drove down attendances (alongside commercial revenue losses)-and resorted to breaking a legally binding agreement despite having a perfectly reasonable offer on the table. Fisher is playing roulette with the club's future and has been doing ever since he initiated this rent boycott-and yet some here have taken his word as gospel. Ludicrous.

Regarding point one I would have assumed that wolves and Bolton have the biggest wage budgets and in league one tranmere are not one of the top 6 payers.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Regarding point one I would have assumed that wolves and Bolton have the biggest wage budgets and in league one tranmere are not one of the top 6 payers.

Exceptions to the rule though Grendo-a quick look at the Premier League table tells you that. Or better yet, look at the SPL table-the only team with any money is streets ahead of the rest, who all have virtually nothing so are bunched together. Your view on point 3?

 

[Grendel]

Exceptions to the rule though Grendo-a quick look at the Premier League table tells you that. Or better yet, look at the SPL table-the only team with any money is streets ahead of the rest, who all have virtually nothing so are bunched together. Your view on point 3?

No argument regarding point 3

 

[lordsummerisle]

Exceptions to the rule though Grendo-a quick look at the Premier League table tells you that. Or better yet, look at the SPL table-the only team with any money is streets ahead of the rest, who all have virtually nothing so are bunched together. Your view on point 3?

There are quite a few exceptions to the rule though.

MMM was using his, as yet, unproven argument that we had the lowest wage bill in the Championship as pretty much the only reason that Thorn was doing badly(November 2011 this particular one).

No doubt that it does have an impact, but is not the only one, for every out=performing team there is an under-performing team, so there are more teams than you would think who don't get results based on wage bills/transfers.

As I said in the original discussion(when, unlike MMM says at the start of this one, several people did bring him up on his "lowest wage bill in the league" comment, his only evidence for this at the time was "that he heard Hoffman say something on the radio"), if amount of money a club has is the only criteria then we might as well just show our wedges at the start of the season and dish out the prizes and league positions accordingly.

At least we'd have defintely got promoted this season.

 

[luwalla]

As far as MMM's arguments go:

1. 'A club's finances are the main driver for their league position'. Surely can't be disputed; would Man City have won the league last year without having insane wealth behind them? Unlikely. Take a look at the Championship this season too-Cardiff, constantly spending more than they've got, are ahead by 10 points with the likes of Leicester not far behind who spend just as much. Palace have sold players for big money so can justify extra spending through that.

2. 'Northampton could feasibly relocate to the Ricoh and compensate for the club not being there'-Not especially relevant as the club aren't going anywhere.

3. 'The club's management are the ones responsible for the current predicament'-Not really in dispute amongst those of us capable of removing Sky Blue tinted glasses. You can trace it all the way back to Richardson pocketing cash from the HR sale, to McGinnity selling our stake in ACL to pay off Richardson's debt, through to relegation to the third tier resulting virtually direct from horrendous boardroom leadership and the appointment of a buffoon as manager. Were this club still in the Championship, FFP would simply dictate that a maximum of £4m in losses can be funded in loans from the owners-this is wholly different to the FFP requirements in League 1.

We have less revenue because poor boardroom management got us relegated and drove down attendances (alongside commercial revenue losses)-and resorted to breaking a legally binding agreement despite having a perfectly reasonable offer on the table. Fisher is playing roulette with the club's future and has been doing ever since he initiated this rent boycott-and yet some here have taken his word as gospel. Ludicrous.

A lot if this is true.. The downward financial spiral can under be traced back to the Richardson era, and then subsequent chairman trying to pay off the debt with further bad decisions .. What sisu an fisher are now trying to do though is exactly the opposite, stop the rot, and try and fix the mistakes that the previous chairman made ( withe the ludicrous rent agreement ) so despite their mistakes - of which they have made many - I believe the club are now doing the right thing and trying to give the club a solid working financial base

You talk about people having sky blue glasses .. But to slate the previous chairmans for compounding the financial problems , and then slate sisu for trying to do just the opposite! Does maybe spank of someone with grudge against sisu

Both sides are to blame for the way this has turned out.. But I believe sisu are right to address this issue, and the Information out there would appear to point to ACL being very selective with the truth .. My guess, they don't like sisu, don't want to do business with them and are trying to make it look like they are bending over backwards, when I'm fact they are not.. Like a bitchy 6 year old girl having a playground fight! Quite pathetic & with no regard for the stability of the city's football club

Independent arbitration by a third party would be the fair outcome here. Everyone can see that.. Sisu have suggested that.. ACL have declined and said they want all their Money. For me that says quite a lot about who's really looking for a fair outcome here and who's looking to line their pockets at the expense if the club

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

There are quite a few exceptions to the rule though.

MMM was using his, as yet, unproven argument that we had the lowest wage bill in the Championship as pretty much the only reason that Thorn was doing badly(November 2011 this particular one).

No doubt that it does have an impact, but is not the only one, for every out=performing team there is an under-performing team, so there are more teams than you would think who don't get results based on wage bills/transfers.

As I said in the original discussion(when, unlike MMM says at the start of this one, several people did bring him up on his "lowest wage bill in the league" comment, his only evidence for this at the time was "that he heard Hoffman say something on the radio"), if amount of money a club has is the only criteria then we might as well just show our wedges at the start of the season and dish out the prizes and league positions accordingly.

At least we'd have defintely got promoted this season.

I think you're taking the point out of context-nobody said that money is the sole determinant for league position; what actually was said is that it's the most important factor. How have Crawley got themselves into this league, for example? Barcelona and Real Madrid's stranglehold on Spanish football is another case in point.

As for ourselves this season-even despite throwing 28 points away from winning positions and not winning once in the first 10 games, we're just 8 points from automatic promotion. Quite where we would be if Thorn had been ditched immediately after Southampton and Robins installed soon after doesn't bear thinking about; because we'd have promotion in the bag by now.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

A lot if this is true.. The downward financial spiral can under be traced back to the Richardson era, and then subsequent chairman trying to pay off the debt with further bad decisions .. What sisu an fisher are now trying to do though is exactly the opposite, stop the rot, and try and fix the mistakes that the previous chairman made ( withe the ludicrous rent agreement ) so despite their mistakes - of which they have made many - I believe the club are now doing the right thing and trying to give the club a solid working financial base

You talk about people having sky blue glasses .. But to slate the previous chairmans for compounding the financial problems , and then slate sisu for trying to do just the opposite! Does maybe spank of someone with grudge against sisu

Both sides are to blame for the way this has turned out.. But I believe sisu are right to address this issue, and the Information out there would appear to point to ACL being very selective with the truth .. My guess, they don't like sisu, don't want to do business with them and are trying to make it look like they are bending over backwards, when I'm fact they are not.. Like a bitchy 6 year old girl having a playground fight! Quite pathetic & with no regard for the stability of the city's football club

Independent arbitration by a third party would be the fair outcome here. Everyone can see that.. Sisu have suggested that.. ACL have declined and said they want all their Money. For me that says quite a lot about who's really looking for a fair outcome here and who's looking to line their pockets at the expense if the club

I hold SISU to blame for our current league status and the noose getting tighter around the club's neck, and few of us can disagree that they are in a large part responsible for it. I want the club to succeed on and off the pitch, but rather than continue legitimate negotiations, they have persisted with a boycott which threatens its financial viability. It is all so unneccessary and Fisher can bring an end to it any time he so wishes-indeed he could have accepted very favourable terms some time ago.

 

[dongonzalos]

I hold SISU to blame for our current league status and the noose getting tighter around the club's neck, and few of us can disagree that they are in a large part responsible for it. I want the club to succeed on and off the pitch, but rather than continue legitimate negotiations, they have persisted with a boycott which threatens its financial viability. It is all so unneccessary and Fisher can bring an end to it any time he so wishes-indeed he could have accepted very favourable terms some time ago.

Agree 100%

 

[luwalla]

They haven't boycotted , they pay a nominal amount each week , while negotiations were ongoing . plus dismt he say in an interview that there was around 400k still in escrow when they ceased full payments .. ACL have taken that full 400k plus the nominal payments each month from The club.. TF said that in total around 800k has actually been paid to ACL in the last year I believe..

So it's not like they just stopped paying anything.. They are paying what they believe is fair while they negotiate, and it's still a fair whack of money .. ACL haven't disputed any of this, so even what SISU are paying now is more than all other clubs in this league I'm sure.. So again , who's trying to work things out fairly ?

 

[coundonskyblue]

They haven't boycotted , they pay a nominal amount each week , while negotiations were ongoing . plus dismt he say in an interview that there was around 400k still in escrow when they ceased full payments .. ACL have taken that full 400k plus the nominal payments each month from The club.. TF said that in total around 800k has actually been paid to ACL in the last year I believe..

So it's not like they just stopped paying anything.. They are paying what they believe is fair while they negotiate, and it's still a fair whack of money .. ACL haven't disputed any of this, so even what SISU are paying now is more than all other clubs in this league I'm sure.. So again , who's trying to work things out fairly ?

They haven't paid anything in rent for 12 months.

What they have paid is matchday costs, they would have to pay these regardless. Typical Fisher spin I'm afraid.

As for the Escow account, that isn't there as some sort of rent holiday for CCFC to abuse whenever they feel like it.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

They haven't boycotted , they pay a nominal amount each week , while negotiations were ongoing . plus dismt he say in an interview that there was around 400k still in escrow when they ceased full payments .. ACL have taken that full 400k plus the nominal payments each month from The club.. TF said that in total around 800k has actually been paid to ACL in the last year I believe..

So it's not like they just stopped paying anything.. They are paying what they believe is fair while they negotiate, and it's still a fair whack of money .. ACL haven't disputed any of this, so even what SISU are paying now is more than all other clubs in this league I'm sure.. So again , who's trying to work things out fairly ?

Matchday costs are not tantamount to rent despite what Tim might claim. The escrow will have been emptied after 5 months' boycotting (we're almost at the 1 year anniversary, how special) and was not placed their by the current regime. Fisher's claim is simple-£500k from the escrow plus the remaining £300k in matchday fees-problem is that the escrow money was not put there by SISU and the £300k is separate to the rent actually owed (and indeed is paid by every club up and down the country).

 

[coundonskyblue]

His argument about matchday costs is a bit like refusing to pay your mortgage, but then taking the moral high ground because you've paid your electric bill.

 

[Dude]

I distinctly remember similar disputes to this on the old Telegraph site. From the original SISU buyout, I've never quite understood the concept of a hedge fund owning a football club as I can only see their only strategic objective focused on profit.

The only saving grace for me was that they may invest for Premiership football with the hope of a profitable sell-on. When that option lessened I assumed stadium ownership was another possible goal.

I then expected relegation to bring the matter to a conclusion as I couldn't see why they would continue to prop a loss-making project afloat. If the promotion door is closed with the current amount of debt outstanding and all that lies ahead is another season of Division 1 then surely the end is nigh.

When that time finally comes I believe we will all be informed of how this club has been managed, and more importantly financed, over the past few years. I do think we were screwed on the original deal at The Ricoh; we were left with no facility to make a profit, let alone break even. That said, taking off my club colours, in the business sense I cannot see how any organisation would continue meaningful negotiation with SISU after their recent antics.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

"There are all kinds of stupid people that annoy me but what annoys me most is a lazy argument." (yours) - Christopher Hitchens

A few for SBK:

"Keep cool; anger is not an argument." - Daniel Webster

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

Lmfao...you mean much like you do when someone has the opposite view to you???
like your argument about 4-5-1 having more wins than 4-4-2???
Seeing as 4-4-2 has been played approx 5 times in the league this year...remind me again...how many games have we played in the league up to now??????
Talk about stating the obvious ffs!
BUT!!! let's take these games into consideration. The ratio of games won whilst playing 4-4-2 totally blitzes 4-5-1 or any other combination of formations.


You're a self opinionated twat m8....you prove that everytime someone disagrees with your post. If you put across your opinion...no problem, but you don't just do that do you!!! You try to force your view on everyone. Won't work with me pal. :jerkit:

 

[coundonskyblue]

I distinctly remember similar disputes to this on the old Telegraph site. From the original SISU buyout, I've never quite understood the concept of a hedge fund owning a football club as I can only see their only strategic objective focused on profit.

The only saving grace for me was that they may invest for Premiership football with the hope of a profitable sell-on. When that option lessened I assumed stadium ownership was another possible goal.

I then expected relegation to bring the matter to a conclusion as I couldn't see why they would continue to prop a loss-making project afloat. If the promotion door is closed with the current amount of debt outstanding and all that lies ahead is another season of Division 1 then surely the end is nigh.

When that time finally comes I believe we will all be informed of how this club has been managed, and more importantly financed, over the past few years. I do think we were screwed on the original deal at The Ricoh; we were left with no facility to make a profit, let alone break even. That said, taking off my club colours, in the business sense I cannot see how any organisation would continue meaningful negotiation with SISU after their recent antics.

I personally think Sisu won't be here next season if we're still in league 1.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Disagree on the last point Dude-we were 'screwed on the original deal at the Ricoh' because we sold our stake in it. Had we not done so, we would have been a part of ACL from the beginning, not been charged rent, and would be reaping the rewards as soon as the mortgage gets paid off. The club got itself into this mess and has no right to expect others just to hand them a way out, especially through illegitimate means-this could all have been settled at the negotiating table at any time since SISU took the helm.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I personally think Sisu won't be here next season if we're still in league 1.

Without a prospective buyer they have no choice, unless they want to lose all of the money they have put in-remember they are ultimately answerable to their investors.

 

[Dude]

Point taken Brighton.

Perhaps I didn't choose my wording carefully. When I said screwed I wasn't attaching blame; I was really referring to the fact that we never had a chance of breaking even with such income limitation. Making my original assumption that SISU would never pump big money into the playing side, I could only see them meeting bills by selling and, therefore, weakening our promotion prospects.

 

[coundonskyblue]

Without a prospective buyer they have no choice, unless they want to lose all of the money they have put in-remember they are ultimately answerable to their investors.

Surely there must come a point though when you cut your losses?

They will never get their money back now anyway. No one will pay £45m for a club with no assets and limited income. I'm afraid Administration is the only long term option left to us.

Sisu have proven themselves too incompetent to be trusted with the Ricoh, so that will never be sold to them.

The longer they are here the bigger the debt gets. The bigger the debt, the more likely the club would be liquidated with the inevitable administration.

The sooner they go the better.

 

[Grendel]

Disagree on the last point Dude-we were 'screwed on the original deal at the Ricoh' because we sold our stake in it. Had we not done so, we would have been a part of ACL from the beginning, not been charged rent, and would be reaping the rewards as soon as the mortgage gets paid off. The club got itself into this mess and has no right to expect others just to hand them a way out, especially through illegitimate means-this could all have been settled at the negotiating table at any time since SISU took the helm.

Evidence seems against you here. In most examples where the football club has "stuck 2 fingers up" at the Council the football club has had its own way. Problem is we have fans like you and Coundonskyblue that are even interested in the implications for anyone else. I'm not - they can all sink without trace for all I care.

 

[Dude]

Without a prospective buyer they have no choice, unless they want to lose all of the money they have put in-remember they are ultimately answerable to their investors.

That's where I differ - sooner or later you stop feeding fruit machines, walk away and accept a loss. That, of course, is even assuming they can afford to keep feeding it anyway?

 

[Grendel]

His argument about matchday costs is a bit like refusing to pay your mortgage, but then taking the moral high ground because you've paid your electric bill.

No it isn't and we must have the only football fans in the world who give a toss even if it is.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Evidence seems against you here. In most examples where the football club has "stuck 2 fingers up" at the Council the football club has had its own way. Problem is we have fans like you and Coundonskyblue that are even interested in the implications for anyone else. I'm not - they can all sink without trace for all I care.

Just because that has sometimes been the case doesn't justify it. CCFC put itself in this position which is what distinguishes it from the other cases-the venture was perfectly set up for the club to benefit but then we sold our share to the charity; why you see even they as worthy of going to the wall because of Mike McGinnity and Tim Fisher I do not understand.

 

[coundonskyblue]

Evidence seems against you here. In most examples where the football club has "stuck 2 fingers up" at the Council the football club has had its own way. Problem is we have fans like you and Coundonskyblue that are even interested in the implications for anyone else. I'm not - they can all sink without trace for all I care.

What a wonderful view of life.

Just because other football clubs have done it, does that mean its right?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That's where I differ - sooner or later you stop feeding fruit machines, walk away and accept a loss. That, of course, is even assuming they can afford to keep feeding it anyway?

Accept that Dude but the total loaned to prop up losses must be near or past the £50m mark now; that's a sum of money which is just too big to write off I feel.

 

[coundonskyblue]

No it isn't and we must have the only football fans in the world who give a toss even if it is.

How is it different then?

Please explain how rent and matchday costs are the same thing?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Surely there must come a point though when you cut your losses?

They will never get their money back now anyway. No one will pay £45m for a club with no assets and limited income. I'm afraid Administration is the only long term option left to us.

Sisu have proven themselves too incompetent to be trusted with the Ricoh, so that will never be sold to them.

The longer they are here the bigger the debt gets. The bigger the debt, the more likely the club would be liquidated with the inevitable administration.

The sooner they go the better.

I suspect they would therefore be happy to get some of the money back if not all of it. If a prospective investor were offered the club at a majorly knocked down price with the prospect of re-negotiated terms at the Ricoh, I could see some interest. It all depends on how much the SISU investors have at stake.

 

[Grendel]

How is it different then?

Please explain how rent and matchday costs are the same thing?

Because it is not like paying a mortgage. If you know you are the only tenant who will ever pay the rent and you dont pay then the Bank will far more understanding,

 

[Jack Griffin]

If you want to start understanding the correlation between success & salary in football then take a look at this
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f340caae-47cd-11e1-b646-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2M8KrDnjx

PS this is not me agreeing with people who follow Fishers line about increased revenues, that was always obviously going to make a difference at the margins, my concerns lie much deeper than that, namely the practise of running the club at a significant loss year on year, that is what will ultimately destroy the club, not the league they're in. If the club was well run it would be challenging in this league by dint of its status compared to the others in the division, not by over extending itself.