I for one wouldn't mind admin (7 Viewers)

[cloughie]

I think the main sticking point to any potential investors is SISU.

No one wants to deal with them because they know it's futile.

SISU want their investment back and they'll do anything to accomplish that.

Administration would be favourable as SISU would have to leave.

The Council's hard line attitude right now has come on ever so sudden and Sky Blue Pete said he'd had a chat with someone from the Council and they said there are interested parties who would like to do a deal to buy CCFC but will not deal with SISU under any circumstances.

If administration comes round, once they're gone, these investors can step in. They'd also have a clean slate with the Council and ACL so would be able to negotiate for control of the stadium!

The council would be willing to deal with them because they are not SISU!

Unfortunately not true as the administrator will sell to the highest bidder which could be ARVO and who owns them? sisu

That breaks all contracts ie rent and they sadly retain control

 

---

[Grendel]

As for the land issue, I believe they want to build hotels and more housing in that area, not to mention the train station.

Hotel's allow oppersition fans (and travelling Sky Blue Fans) the opportunity to come down the day before the match.

Their money would be going into not only the hotel but also the shops and eateries across from the stadium.

It's a cash cow waiting to happen! But SISU haven't got the money (nor the stadium) in order to do it.

That's why people are always saying SISU only want the stadium and the land and not CCFC.

They'd definately start to make money is they got their grubby little hands on the land.

But the Council wont let them because they don't trust them!

Total ill informed tosh

 

[RichieGunns]

Total ill informed tosh

Ok then oh great Grendal! Oh might Grendal who knows everything!

Let's here it? What is it that I don't know!?

Seriously spill it if you know better!

I promise to read every little bit of it!

(Oh and for the record, I'm only going by what I've heard so if you've got a better reason why SISU want the ground and surrounding areas (apart from obviously marrying up the club with ground reason), then let me know )

 

[skybluehugh]

It's coming partly because a lot of people adopt the same attitude as you. A united front against the council as seen in many other community owned projects could produce a much more favourable outcome.

Pressed the like button by mistake.

How about a united front against the owners who got us into this mess in the first place. and don't try and blame anyone before Shitsu as we were told by them that all debt had been cleared when they took us over.

 

[CJparker]

Administration cannot/ will not happen, so quit dreaming

 

[covman]

Administration cannot/ will not happen, so quit dreaming

I admire your confidence/stupidity.

 

[hutch1972]

nor an excessively high rent or landlords that have the power to make or break a business.

I don't get all this about developing the land around the RIcoh. What is there to develop. There's already a massive retail complex. More hotels? Can the current climate sustain more businesses like that? Particularly when building large scale infrastructure projects doesn't seem to make much sense.

Tell you what ! Why dont the council do their job and fekkin develop the surrounding areas themselves ,instead of insisting other parties do it for them.

 

[CJparker]

I admire your confidence/stupidity.

From my post just now on another thread:

Neither admin or liquidation is likely. Here is why:

Admin would need SISU to agree to it - they won't because the vast majority of the debt - let's call it £40m for the sake of argument, is with their own shareholders. Because administration is a process of effectively writing off your debts, admin for Coventry City would basically mean SISU wiping out its' own shareholders investment in CCFC. Won't happen, as SISU are a hedge fund whose whole purpose is to protect the investment of its shareholders.

Liquidation would need SISU to do it, and would wipe out all the debt owed to SISU's shareholders. This would be a terrible deal for SISU to have to get their shareholders to agree - the shareholders are far more likely to ask for the club to be sold to a new owner, even for a nominal £1, as long as some of the debt was carried over to the new owners, even at a low-ish rate like 30p in the pound. SISU also of course has its' corporate reputation to think of, and the enormous damage it would do to its credibility if they oversaw the demise of the biggest English club ever to go bust. Hardly a glowing recommendation of an investment management company.

So to sum up, we will be sold, not wound up or placed into admin.

 

[covman]

From my post just now on another thread:

Neither admin or liquidation is likely. Here is why:

Admin would need SISU to agree to it - they won't because the vast majority of the debt - let's call it £40m for the sake of argument, is with their own shareholders. Because administration is a process of effectively writing off your debts, admin for Coventry City would basically mean SISU wiping out its' own shareholders investment in CCFC. Won't happen, as SISU are a hedge fund whose whole purpose is to protect the investment of its shareholders.

Liquidation would need SISU to do it, and would wipe out all the debt owed to SISU's shareholders. This would be a terrible deal for SISU to have to get their shareholders to agree - the shareholders are far more likely to ask for the club to be sold to a new owner, even for a nominal £1, as long as some of the debt was carried over to the new owners, even at a low-ish rate like 30p in the pound. SISU also of course has its' corporate reputation to think of, and the enormous damage it would do to its credibility if they oversaw the demise of the biggest English club ever to go bust. Hardly a glowing recommendation of an investment management company.

So to sum up, we will be sold, not wound up or placed into admin.

Hedge funds revel in taking high risk investments. Some you win, some you lose. They know when to cut their losses and that time is fast approaching. 45m, if you actually believe they have put in, may not be such a hit when split between many investors particularly when other investments they are involved in may have made millions. This will not be the first investment that has failed for SISU and a good hedge fund will always leave a sinking ship before they drown. They WILL NOT continue to throw money at it just because they have already spent a lot already. These are professional and ruthless money handlers who will not continue to get burned. Oh and the purpose of a hedge fund is to manage a number of high, medium and low risk investments in the hope of making some money. The clients will get the choice on how much 'risk' they want to take and will be fully aware that sometimes they will lose money too.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Hedge funds revel in taking high risk investments. Some you win, some you lose. They know when to cut their losses and that time is fast approaching. 45m, if you actually believe they have put in, may not be such a hit when split between many investors particularly when other investments they are involved in may have made millions. This will not be the first investment that has failed for SISU and a good hedge fund will always leave a sinking ship before they drown. They WILL NOT continue to throw money at it just because they have already spent a lot already. These are professional and ruthless money handlers who will not continue to get burned.

I think - I hope - that the reason SISU has funded CCFC and will continue to do so is because the rewards are so tantalisingly close. If we were making the case for CCFC to the investors, wouldn't we say "rather than write off £45m, invest £5m on the playing side, get promotion, recoup a ton of money"?

 

[CJparker]

Tantalisingly close?

To make a profit we'd need to Premier League, and it will take millions more than our current budget to put us there, even if FFP allowed.

CCFC are many things, but tantalisingly close to success we are not.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Tantalisingly close?

To make a profit we'd need to Premier League, and it will take millions more than our current budget to put us there, even if FFP allowed.

CCFC are many things, but tantalisingly close to success we are not.

For me, that would be SISU's end-game, it would have to be surely? Realistically, what can they do to recoup their investment?

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Tantalisingly close?

To make a profit we'd need to Premier League, and it will take millions more than our current budget to put us there, even if FFP allowed.

CCFC are many things, but tantalisingly close to success we are not.

Yes, tantalisingly close. This isn't like a loss-making start-up business that has nowhere to go.

The break-even number in terms of attendance could be easily achieved with a team that is winning. Add to that extra revenue from runs in competitions like the paint trophy. Recoup some money on promotion. And quite on top of that, the club has more sale value as an asset in the Championship one would imagine. If I was one of those investors, I'd be much more for an investment surge than writing off £45m.

 

[Steve.B50]

Be a good question to ask Steve Waggot tomorrow night.

 

[Flying Fokker]

Tell you what ! Why dont the council do their job and fekkin develop the surrounding areas themselves ,instead of insisting other parties do it for them.

Good point

 

[TheParsonsHose]

Fair point, but neither have the facilities and potential of the Ricoh Arena.

Numerous expansion plans rejected at the blues as well over the years. :claping hands:

 

[CJparker]

Yes, tantalisingly close. This isn't like a loss-making start-up business that has nowhere to go.

The break-even number in terms of attendance could be easily achieved with a team that is winning. Add to that extra revenue from runs in competitions like the paint trophy. Recoup some money on promotion. And quite on top of that, the club has more sale value as an asset in the Championship one would imagine. If I was one of those investors, I'd be much more for an investment surge than writing off £45m.

As far as I understand though, the correct scenario you paint in paragraph 2 hasn't fundamentally changed since 2007 when SISU arrived - except that we exited the Championship in the wrong direction. It will take more rebuilding than ever.

An opportunity is no good if it is not grasped; it will remain just that - an unreached opportunity. Yes, the opportunity is there. But is CCFC under SISU capable of grabbing it? The evidence after 5 years has to be "no" - there is no other conclusion to make.

At some point, the shareholders will say "enough is enough" and stop pouring good money after bad. I cannot see anything left that prevents this from happening.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Be a good question to ask Steve Waggot tomorrow night.

That to me? If so, you, or anyone else are welcome to ask them for me, and post what they say. Of course it'll be answered in a typical politician way, much like the answer I get when I ask ashbyjan and other Trust members questions.

I bet (scrap that, I guarantee) Waggott will try to hit some emotional soft-spots, like many on here do.

 

[CJparker]

Taylor, why your scepticism towards the Trust?

Even if they can make an iota of difference in dislodging SISU and giving us the fresh start we need, they must be worth supporting wholeheartedly.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

As far as I understand though, the correct scenario you paint in paragraph 2 hasn't fundamentally changed since 2007 when SISU arrived - except that we exited the Championship in the wrong direction. It will take more rebuilding than ever ... At some point, the shareholders will say "enough is enough" and stop pouring good money after bad. I cannot see anything left that prevents this from happening.

Well, the hope would be that all of these failures make them learn: unhesitatingly fire underperforming managers (Coleman, Thorn); support the squad (like this season) and see greater success and happiness in the fanbase; reap rewards within a year or two that could be had with a small investment rather than write off £45m.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Taylor, why your scepticism towards the Trust?

Even if they can make an iota of difference in dislodging SISU and giving us the fresh start we need, they must be worth supporting wholeheartedly.

Whenever I've asked questions, I get politician crap thrown at me, and tbh, I don't appreciate that, it annoys me when I see a policitians speech or answer questions, they don't answer the question, likewise with the trust.

Behave he Trust could not, would not run the club on its own, clubs owned by the supports is a non-league thing, which says something! Many have alluded to the Swansea Fans' Trust, they are a credit to their club but they own a minority share 10-20%, there's a reason for that, also, I don't actually know this, but at a guess, the SFT has possibly 10x he members of the SBT, our Trust has about 800 members, not even 10% of a weekly turnout at a City game.

I also don't believe the Trust are impartial, they seem very much anti-SISU, and seem to support ACL on this issue, and I for one, will not buy into that, I may one day, but not now.

Ironically, I have travelled to my last 3 away games with the trust coach :laugh:

 

[CJparker]

I don't dispute anything you wrote SBT, especially on politicians, but I do think that 800 is a good number and that for all their faults, they are worth supporting.

 

[CJparker]

Well, the hope would be that all of these failures make them learn: unhesitatingly fire underperforming managers (Coleman, Thorn); support the squad (like this season) and see greater success and happiness in the fanbase; reap rewards within a year or two that could be had with a small investment rather than write off £45m.

Again I agree here - what you say is transparently correct. However, again, this has been the case for a number of years - unless you think SISU's shareholders will continue to fund CCFC indefinitely, then by definition you agree that they would draw a line somewhere. While it is all a guessing game, I would expect their patience is wearing thin.

After all, the majority of supporters, it would appear, have lost confidence in SISU's basic managerial competence and ultimate motivations. Whilst this trust can be won back, it is a long road and things are still moving in the wrong direction, with the self-inflicted rent fiasco and the transfer embargo. Why would SISU's shareholders not see the same picture and come to the same conclusion?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I don't dispute anything you wrote SBT, especially on politicians, but I do think that 800 is a good number and that for all their faults, they are worth supporting.

Agree with you there CJ-at least they are actively trying to do something in the club's interests.

 

[deanocity3]

I heard that there was two Chinese businessmen at the match yesterday

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Again I agree here - what you say is transparently correct. However, again, this has been the case for a number of years - unless you think SISU's shareholders will continue to fund CCFC indefinitely, then by definition you agree that they would draw a line somewhere. While it is all a guessing game, I would expect their patience is wearing thin.

As I say, my hope would be that they continue to learn from their mistakes. I actually think they did that for the most part this season: the squad was well-funded, they acted decisively after a bad start and brought in a good manager. And as much as people may dislike Fisher and/or Waggott, there is no doubt they communicate with the fans much better than they used to. The critical mistake was in sticking with Andy Thorn during the summer. I think CCFC would be more-or-less top of the table were it not for those first eight games.

A real case could be made to investors that there's sunshine to be had from this season. Whether they will do that or not is anyone's guess - it is just my hope.

 

[Steve.B50]

Sky blue Taylor.
The Trust tries to me impartial but as individual supporters we have our own views as members of the trust.
I do not genuinely believe the Trust could ever raise enough money to buy the club or ever run the organisation.
However, I for one want to actually do something and at least try and save the team I love.
What we need is everyone to be part of something that is at the very least is trying, we may not all agree but we have the same aim?

On another note if we are anti SISU why has Steve Waggot agreed to meet with the Trust (although all welcome) tomorrow evening?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Steve Waggott isn't a SISU member. Perhaps get Joy to show her face instead-she hasn't done so once since 2007.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Agree with you there CJ-at least they are actively trying to do something in the club's interests.

Like what?

They would've accepted the 1st rent reduction had they been negotiating! We'd be fucked even with hat agreement. Based on what exactly? When I asked that direct question, I didn't get a direct answer saying they wouldn't have, which suggest they would've accepted it, which to me, suggests they do not have a business mind to run a club the size of CCFC's.

What has the Trust done? Genuine question here I do not know. Bar talking to the media, I can only think of that 'SISU Out!' protest...

I don't mean to cause any bad blood here, but they are my opinions. In a capitalist society Fans' Trusts cannot run football clubs in the FL.

 

[deanocity3]

Sky blue Taylor.
The Trust tries to me impartial but as individual supporters we have our own views as members of the trust.
I do not genuinely believe the Trust could ever raise enough money to buy the club or ever run the organisation.
However, I for one want to actually do something and at least try and save the team I love.
What we need is everyone to be part of something that is at the very least is trying, we may not all agree but we have the same aim?

On another note if we are anti SISU why has Steve Waggot agreed to meet with the Trust (although all welcome) tomorrow evening?

Swansea wouldn't be where they are now if a group of supporters had raised issues and they became 20% owners of the club,at least they are doing something

 

[CJparker]

As I say, my hope would be that they continue to learn from their mistakes. I actually think they did that for the most part this season: the squad was well-funded, they acted decisively after a bad start and brought in a good manager. And as much as people may dislike Fisher and/or Waggott, there is no doubt they communicate with the fans much better than they used to. The critical mistake was in sticking with Andy Thorn during the summer. I think CCFC would be more-or-less top of the table were it not for those first eight games.

A real case could be made to investors that there's sunshine to be had from this season. Whether they will do that or not is anyone's guess - it is just my hope.

While we disagree on the merits of AT, I think the central point remains that things are not really looking up - this season reminds me of 2001/2 when we first went down to the championship, which is ominous in itself.

The argument that you suggest putting to the shareholders differs little in substance to all such messages since 2007 - the picture has worsened, not brightened, and looks set to continue to do so. We may get better weather and no harm in trying to plead with other people to share such a view, but it's not in the forecast now.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Let's see SBT. Accepting the offer of half rent wouldn't have barred further negotiation thereafter and is a mere £200k more than what Tim deems acceptable. The matter at hand is purely food and drink which is what Tim says will decide whether the club goes bust or not.

How plausible do you think that really is?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Sky blue Taylor.
The Trust tries to me impartial but as individual supporters we have our own views as members of the trust.
I do not genuinely believe the Trust could ever raise enough money to buy the club or ever run the organisation.
However, I for one want to actually do something and at least try and save the team I love.
What we need is everyone to be part of something that is at the very least is trying, we may not all agree but we have the same aim?

On another note if we are anti SISU why has Steve Waggot agreed to meet with the Trust (although all welcome) tomorrow evening?

Talking prematurely aren't we? We haven't seen if he makes it out alive yet! :laugh: (thought I'd throw some humour in there)

I did applaud both Waggott and more so, the Trust for making this happen, hopefully this will clear some issues up.

Don't we all want our club to be rid of SISU? I don't think anyone actually wants them here, however, I can't see a realistic alternative and I would not want the club to be put in to admin and risk liquidation to hopefully find some new investors, even then, how would we know if we would end up with a 'SISU 2.0'? No sensible investor would invest in CCFC and the finest example of this is Alki David.

A Supporters Trust is something I might buy into, but since the SBT is very much in ACL's side here*, I cannot, will not buy into it at this moment in time.

I asked Jan 'would it worth all the hassle if we got a favourable rent agreement', he answered in short 'no', I for one do not know if it is the Trust's opinion or his opinion, but I disagree with that.

If worst came to worst, and SISU left leaving the club facing extinction, I'd fully back the Trust to try and do SOMETHING, as I'd set aside my differences for a greater good, to save my club, which I love and has been like a drug, literally as it goes

 

[Colonel Mustard]

While we disagree on the merits of AT

There are none to discuss. I don't think I have ever come across an issue that is so transparently obvious and yet has so many objecters. Perhaps the theory of evolution.

The argument that you suggest putting to the shareholders differs little in substance to all such messages since 2007 - the picture has worsened, not brightened, and looks set to continue to do so. We may get better weather and no harm in trying to plead with other people to share such a view, but it's not in the forecast now.

A tortured metaphor. It can be easily argued that the situation has improved; Twitter's financial situation gets worse each year, but investors pump it with cash because they know there will be an enormous payout in the future. I would just say that the data is there: championship-calibre points-per-game with a decent manager; 30k sell-out with a cup run. Nothing needs to be fabricated - the substance is right there to see.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Let's see SBT. Accepting the offer of half rent wouldn't have barred further negotiation thereafter and is a mere £200k more than what Tim deems acceptable. The matter at hand is purely food and drink which is what Tim says will decide whether the club goes bust or not.

How plausible do you think that really is?

Could I have a quote? I don't think he dumbed it down that much, surely?

It's scrimping and scraping everything you've got, and you say it's a "mere" 200k less, well is it though? Because we still wouldn't be getting revenue streams which is looking at 100-200k (depends on turnout) so you're saving 400k, which is a lot and in the grand scheme of things, we've cut over 1m off our expenditure, how can that be bad?

Had we have accepted that agreement, don't be naive to suggest ACL wouldn't have been like 'you accepted it', that'd be it as far as they were concerned, done and dusted.

I don't think SISU wanted 400k, I think that was a compromise from the 2 parties involved, did you think of that? Considering we rejected the 1st 400k offer and we soon said 'we're paying x6 market value whilst those clubs get 100% revenue'.

Funnily enough, when it first came out we rejected it, I do remember saying 'they'll come back with more concessions' which they did, when the vast majority were nearly 'up in arms'.