Your beloved SISU: Why? (1 Viewer)

[CJparker]

Sisu have got their fingers burned but are stubbornly refusing to give way, recognise their intractability.
This comes down to hubris.
Their investors must regret the day they got involved.

I bet Joy wishes she had never heard of Coventry City FC

 

---

[rob9872]

If they choose to fight, ACL should lock them out of the Ricoh and see how they like that.

Would be a huge own gial as would give sisu reason to leave the broken contract

 

[dadgad]

Who signed too the ret agreement which was ridiculous in it's entirety due to the amount of rent paid? Who sold off our revenue rights to ensure we didn't profit from the Arena? Who has stopped negotiations with regards to the rent? Who has then filed for Admin despite the club is a position to gain promotion and then claim that they "Did it for the fans"??

Oh dear, like I said; your new to this.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Could you give us a definition of the word negotiation please?

That two parties discuss terms of which a financial settlement can be made on the purchase of an item at the point of discussion.

 

[CJparker]

Would be a huge own gial as would give sisu reason to leave the broken contract

No, the contract includes clauses that allow ACL to do this. It does not include clauses to allow SISU not to pay the rent.

CCFC has nowhere to go - SISU would be forced to concede.

 

[CJparker]

Who signed too the ret agreement which was ridiculous in it's entirety due to the amount of rent paid? Who sold off our revenue rights to ensure we didn't profit from the Arena? Who has stopped negotiations with regards to the rent? Who has then filed for Admin despite the club is a position to gain promotion and then claim that they "Did it for the fans"??

I'm yet to hear a genuine response to my argument on the rent - if you go to the private sector and ask for £30m in emergency funding to help you complete your proeject (you will be homeless if you don't), the private sector would never give you a rent of £100k per year. Or even £400k per year. £1.5m would be the going rate. So why are CCFC owed special terms by ACL?

Can someone please give a decent response to this, other than "you want CCFC to die" or "we're special we deserve it" or "we really need it"

Let's face it, SISU and the previous regime accepted the rent because they planned to be back in the PL, where it would be easily affordable due to TV money. Their own incompetence has backfired so now we are in L1 - yes, it's unaffordable now, but that's SISU's fault and they are asking others to pick up the tab - unreasonably.

I await some measured and intelligent responses. Based on past form, I am not holding my breath.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Originally Posted by Sky Blue Kid
Any investor that comes in not only saying but doing the right things will get my vote. SISU have zero credibility, especially with ACL/CCC.
In answer to.....RoboCCFC90..And who says that are next owners will be better or possibly worse?.....Unlike SISU,(Whom it took 6 years to realise their tenure has been a total disaster) ACL/CCC will learn by SISU's mistakes, and "Vet" the next owner with a "Fine tooth comb"



RoboCCFC90 says....

Might be for ACL/CCC too learn who means that the next owner will be Fit or Proper? The reason the next owners will be better in your opinion is because they are not SISU, not because you believe they may do better for us.



Try reading the last line that's highlighted mate

Like I have said previously, If an potential owner was to come into discussions with CCC/ACL, there is a chance for whatever reason that they deem that owner to purchase the Arena, SISU/CCFC need the Arena, but ACL/CCC are reluctant to discuss a potential sale not due business but due to there own "Personal" beliefs of SISU and ease tell me SBK, Any new owner coming in could be deemed unfit and improper to hold the responsibility to the Arena which CCFC needs to survive..

 

[RoboCCFC90]

If they choose to fight, ACL should lock them out of the Ricoh and see how they like that.

Locked out and with a big problem but hey CJ as long as you get what you want and SISU are gone, "No matter the cost"

 

[Black6Osprey]

The cost of the Higgs share is based on a calculation of property prices. Sisu would have known this when buying the club.

The point I was making was if the Council and Higgs were helping the club out of the goodness of the heart why within a short time period had a £21m mortgage plus a £6.5m charity share suddenly become £50m worth when at that time the arena was hardly making any money at all.

The club have got themselves in this mess but the council have made it difficult from day one by setting the Higgs price as well as their own with ridiculous development requirements attached to the deal. It has always been a case from the council of SISU pay over the odds, develop the area or bog off. I for one have never been happy with this stance which they took from the start and this shit greedy attitude has helped to lead us down this road.

 

[rob9872]

No, the contract includes clauses that allow ACL to do this. It does not include clauses to allow SISU not to pay the rent.

CCFC has nowhere to go - SISU would be forced to concede.

can't dispute that as I've not seen the contract, but if it is such a one sided agreement then I can't imagine who would have signed it without lawyers pulling these hings apart.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Oh dear, like I said; your new to this.

SISU may be held to a lot of things and potentially more than what they deserved to be in some people's eyes but to believe everything was honkey dorey before they arrived is bull! "Your new to this" Your not new to allowing people to have an opinion if it doesn't suit yours and mock them for it, but that doesn't bother me I will continue to post facts and a thesis to my opinion while you continue to mock.

 

[Grendel]

SISU may be held to a lot of things and potentially more than what they deserved to be in some people's eyes but to believe everything was honkey dorey before they arrived is bull! "Your new to this" Your not new to allowing people to have an opinion if it doesn't suit yours and mock them for it, but that doesn't bother me I will continue to post facts and a thesis to my opinion while you continue to mock.

Dadgad claims to have an enduring memory yet forgot who scored the winner against Oldham. He isn't even good at being a cyber bully.

 

[dadgad]

Richardson and Robinson. No PMs yet.

Haha, you're not being a tad "pious" here, are you?

You're a card carrying sky blue with bags of history well done.
You should therefore understand that the sins of the past aren't wiped away by more bastards using the club as a potential vehicle for the fiscal ambition if their shadowy investors.
It's just more of the same.
Your position therefore - supporting Sisu - is contradicting the man that handed out those leaflets all those years ago.
I admire you for what you did then but it makes your current stance appear hollow.

 

[CJparker]

Love the fact that someone on this thread actually said that SISU are being "victimised" - there are people who genuinely are on another planet.

As Winston Churchill once quipped, "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

 

[dadgad]

SISU may be held to a lot of things and potentially more than what they deserved to be in some people's eyes but to believe everything was honkey dorey before they arrived is bull! "Your new to this" Your not new to allowing people to have an opinion if it doesn't suit yours and mock them for it, but that doesn't bother me I will continue to post facts and a thesis to my opinion while you continue to mock.

But I have answered your first post.
Didn't mock.
You want it both ways, sorry.

 

[CJparker]

can't dispute that as I've not seen the contract, but if it is such a one sided agreement then I can't imagine who would have signed it without lawyers pulling these hings apart.

One sided?? It says "tenant shall pay the rent at the agreed frequency and rate, and, if they do not, the landlord can end their tenancy" - that is common in all tenancy agreements, where's the controversy?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I'm yet to hear a genuine response to my argument on the rent - if you go to the private sector and ask for £30m in emergency funding to help you complete your proeject (you will be homeless if you don't), the private sector would never give you a rent of £100k per year. Or even £400k per year. £1.5m would be the going rate. So why are CCFC owed special terms by ACL?

Can someone please give a decent response to this, other than "you want CCFC to die" or "we're special we deserve it" or "we really need it"

Let's face it, SISU and the previous regime accepted the rent because they planned to be back in the PL, where it would be easily affordable due to TV money. Their own incompetence has backfired so now we are in L1 - yes, it's unaffordable now, but that's SISU's fault and they are asking others to pick up the tab - unreasonably.

I await some measured and intelligent responses. Based on past form, I am not holding my breath.

It's not being owed special terms as I have discussed with you before CJ this agreement was something that should have never been signed, but yet I assume that the reasons it was due to ACL's agreement with Yorkshire Bank.

Yes the original motive of which SISU allowed the agreement to continue was probably due to naively which in the past I have eluded too and accepted. Yet CCFC is faltering business due to past ownership and incompetence SISU haven't done know great favours in this time and haven't improved matters, such is there problem but with regards to the rent if your running a relay and you are already paces behind before your passed the baton, what changes are you supposed to make to ensure that you catch up and with the personal issues that ACL/CCC have with SISU, there won't be an negotiation that will allow CCFC (SISU with or without) to strive.

 

[rob9872]

One sided?? It says "tenant shall pay the rent at the agreed frequency and rate, and, if they do not, the landlord can end their tenancy" - that is common in all tenancy agreements, where's the controversy?

Ending the tenancy is a good outcome for sisu without penalty. What you said previously was not ending the tenancy just refusing entry. I think if they were offered the chance to move without penalty they would accept.

 

[CJparker]

Ending the tenancy is a good outcome for sisu without penalty. What you said previously was not ending the tenancy just refusing entry. I think if they were offered the chance to move without penalty they would accept.

I didn't say anything about "no penalty" - they would still be liable for the unpaid rent and probably some more as well - there is usually a notice period in such agreements, at least 6 months I would guess. So the penalty for leaving is no ground and about £2m in arrears, whilst having to find somewhere else to play.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

But I have answered your first post.
Didn't mock.
You want it both ways, sorry.

I am not saying you didn't respond with a knowledgeable answer to which I have read and responded. But to claim "I am new to this and need help from the fog" is mockery to my opinion, a comment that you made yourself, but I don't want an apology I just assumed that debating a topic could be done without resorting to mocking ones opinion.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Love the fact that someone on this thread actually said that SISU are being "victimised" - there are people who genuinely are on another planet.

As Winston Churchill once quipped, "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

Oh and ACL/CCC just happen to be Saints that have asked the High Court to deem whether CCFCis able to trade due to Kindness and Business, Pure Bull!

 

[CJparker]

It's not being owed special terms as I have discussed with you before CJ this agreement was something that should have never been signed, but yet I assume that the reasons it was due to ACL's agreement with Yorkshire Bank.

Yes the original motive of which SISU allowed the agreement to continue was probably due to naively which in the past I have eluded too and accepted. Yet CCFC is faltering business due to past ownership and incompetence SISU haven't done know great favours in this time and haven't improved matters, such is there problem but with regards to the rent if your running a relay and you are already paces behind before your passed the baton, what changes are you supposed to make to ensure that you catch up and with the personal issues that ACL/CCC have with SISU, there won't be an negotiation that will allow CCFC (SISU with or without) to strive.

It is being owed special terms if you expect someone to give you a cheaper rate than the market rate, for no obvious reason other than "we need it". My business could do with a split in the food and drink revenues, but do you see me demanding it? No, because I am not entitled to it. Nor are SISU.

The second part of your post is pretty incoherent - but you do at least seem to concede in priciple that SISU have failed off the pitch, meaning the rent level became unaffordable. Had they succeed, it would have been affordable. The rent situation is therefore SISU's problem, and they are looking to ACL to bail them out. Which they have no obligation to do.

Happy if ACL offer us good terms - but don't bleat at them as if they are ripping us off when they are clearly not.

 

[rob9872]

Normally I would agree but by refusing them entry I would assume that breaks the contract and would mean no penalty. But as I said I've not seen the actual contract so all guesswork on my part granted. Have you seen it?

 

[dadgad]

I am not saying you didn't respond with a knowledgeable answer to which I have read and responded. But to claim "I am new to this and need help from the fog" is mockery to my opinion, a comment that you made yourself, but I don't want an apology I just assumed that debating a topic could be done without resorting to mocking ones opinion.

You haven't answered it.

Therefore, how do I know that you're not still shrouded
In mist?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It is being owed special terms if you expect someone to give you a cheaper rate than the market rate, for no obvious reason other than "we need it". My business could do with a split in the food and drink revenues, but do you see me demanding it? No, because I am not entitled to it. Nor are SISU.

The second part of your post is pretty incoherent - but you do at least seem to concede in priciple that SISU have failed off the pitch, meaning the rent level became unaffordable. Had they succeed, it would have been affordable. The rent situation is therefore SISU's problem, and they are looking to ACL to bail them out. Which they have no obligation to do.

Happy if ACL offer us good terms - but don't bleat at them as if they are ripping us off when they are clearly not.

Thing is CJ that the rent level itself is no longer in dispute-Fisher is happy with the new figure. The squabble is over revenues-ACL have offered their share of F+B profits (£80k), but the club wants the whole hog from everything including non-footballing events. Is it really necessary for threats of administration over what, an extra £100k? As you say, if we were successful on the pitch none of this would be happening.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

It is being owed special terms if you expect someone to give you a cheaper rate than the market rate, for no obvious reason other than "we need it". My business could do with a split in the food and drink revenues, but do you see me demanding it? No, because I am not entitled to it. Nor are SISU.

The second part of your post is pretty incoherent - but you do at least seem to concede in priciple that SISU have failed off the pitch, meaning the rent level became unaffordable. Had they succeed, it would have been affordable. The rent situation is therefore SISU's problem, and they are looking to ACL to bail them out. Which they have no obligation to do.

Happy if ACL offer us good terms - but don't bleat at them as if they are ripping us off when they are clearly not.

Unfortunately I could make x amount of examples to the rent yet CCFC is in a position which hasn't been seen before now in Football. I still disagree however that the rent is still too much for our situation and feel the rent was probably higher due to payments that ACL were feeding to Yorkshire Bank..

 

[dadgad]

Anyway with that extra 100 k who's to say they wouldn't just
extend Bell's contract?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Who signed too the ret agreement which was ridiculous in it's entirety due to the amount of rent paid? Who sold off our revenue rights to ensure we didn't profit from the Arena? Who has stopped negotiations with regards to the rent? Who has then filed for Admin despite the club is a position to gain promotion and then claim that they "Did it for the fans"??

You don't need to remind me of the fact that Richardson is the one ultimately responsible. However-SISU have made no attempt until the boycott to address the rent which means that either a) They didn't think it was a significant issue at the time or b) They knew it was a problem but couldn't be bothered to get round the negotiating table. ACL have offered a rent acceptable to Fisher (a reduction of £900k) as well as their share of matchday F+B, yet he still sees fit to dangle the club's survival as a bargaining tool.

 

[kg82]

I would hate to think was aimed at me?

No, it was the first line of the op!

 

[RoboCCFC90]

You haven't answered it.

Therefore, how do I know that you're not still shrouded
In mist?

At what point five years ago would you like me to answer?

 

[CJparker]

Thing is CJ that the rent level itself is no longer in dispute-Fisher is happy with the new figure. The squabble is over revenues-ACL have offered their share of F+B profits (£80k), but the club wants the whole hog from everything including non-footballing events. Is it really necessary for threats of administration over what, an extra £100k? As you say, if we were successful on the pitch none of this would be happening.

Depends on who you believe Andy. Some even in this post have stated that the rent is the main issue.

For me, if we are down to such close agreement, then SISU could sign up and get the admin order lifted. The fact that they haven't tells me that something else is going on, perhaps due to funding from their shareholders. Meanwhile, ACL, reasonably enough, reached the limit of their finite amount of patience. Whether SISU's inability to agree is part of a negotiation strategy or is a genuine problem with funding, ACL have the perception that they can't be messed around further, and it is hard to argue with that.

The problem with dealing with the likes of "balls of steel Seppala" is that they will always take as much as they can get - trying to be objective and unreasonable will always see them trying to get the maximum for themselves, so appeasing them is no good. Being tough and resolute is the only language they understand. ACL have stared them down and exposed TF's posturings as so much bluster

 

[RoboCCFC90]

You don't need to remind me of the fact that Richardson is the one ultimately responsible. However-SISU have made no attempt until the boycott to address the rent which means that either a) They didn't think it was a significant issue at the time or b) They knew it was a problem but couldn't be bothered to get round the negotiating table. ACL have offered a rent acceptable to Fisher (a reduction of £900k) as well as their share of matchday F+B, yet he still sees fit to dangle the club's survival as a bargaining tool.

As I have said in many previous posts the answer to your question is (a) SISU and past owners before this never saw the rent as an issue and believed through sheer idiocy that within a certain amount of time that they would be back in the PL that CCFC would be in the PL and could afford to run at ACL's inflated rates.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

No, it was the first line of the op!

Thanks for clearing that up for me : P

 

[CJparker]

Unfortunately I could make x amount of examples to the rent yet CCFC is in a position which hasn't been seen before now in Football. I still disagree however that the rent is still too much for our situation and feel the rent was probably higher due to payments that ACL were feeding to Yorkshire Bank..

Well, go on then - find an investor who will happily give you £30m and accept a return back of £100k p/a. Assuming compound interest of 5% per year, you are looking at a payback period of 40 years - no financier in their right mind would accept this.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Well, go on then - find an investor who will happily give you £30m and accept a return back of £100k p/a. Assuming compound interest of 5% per year, you are looking at a payback period of 40 years - no financier in their right mind would accept this.

Your misunderstanding my comment CJ my example would have been at the amount of rent to the stadia of which we are paying compared to other Clubs in situations similar to ours, not to the investor and to what rate we could lend £30,000,000.