have our council done enough (13 Viewers)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

By your definition, 99.99% of governments don't have a mandate to deal with the things that they actually do!

Not really. A party voted in on it's manifesto, no matter how vague it is, has a mandate to make changes to the constitution, economy etc. but Labour weren't voted on any promises to do with the RICOH, so this 'elected body' nonsense doesn't hold much weight in this scenario.

Anyway, careerist politicians can be just as bad 'Mayfair hedge funds'. - I wouldn't want neither dealing with the RICOH, but that's what we've dealt.

 

---

[Sick Boy]

I don't think they would-they just didn't want to go into administration as they were told that would be the end of the club. It was an "anybody!" situation. That's really not the same as approving or even championing them. And in any case, the majority weren't qualified to comment until they'd experienced the wild adrenalin ride of actually being owned by a private equity firm.

Plenty were lauding SISU and were proud of their reputation. Some were even proud of what was reported in that article about the court case. They were regarded as 'hard-nosed business people', who would stop the club being messed about. It even went as far as goading Southampton for not accepting SISU's offer of a takeover and saying how lucky we were.

A lot of the most pro-sisu lot are now the ones who label others who don't support the council 100% as 'sisu rent boys'. Whereas a lot of the rent boys who were sceptical in the first place were originally labelled as traitors for questioning sisu. How times change, eh?

 

[Grendel]

That depends, it seems to me that it's useless to be able to spend masses on your squad under FFP if you've not got the money to spend.

That is a non answer. FPP rules are capped as a percentage of revenues James so regardless of your personal view on football expenditure which is likely to offer greater revenue -- the arrangement proposed by our council or the arrangement given by Doncaster's council.

 

[oakey]

How did your post relate to my post in any way? It came from nowhere and as I said, has nothing to do with my post.

You were suggesting that the Ricoh arena had nothing to do with CCC, which is clearly absurd.

 

[James Smith]

That is a non answer. FPP rules are capped as a percentage of revenues James so regardless of your personal view on football expenditure which is likely to offer greater revenue -- the arrangement proposed by our council or the arrangement given by Doncaster's council.

To make you happy I guess Doncaster would, although as I say if you've got no money to spend it's a bit academic having the potential to spend it.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You were suggesting that the Ricoh arena had nothing to do with CCC, which is clearly absurd.

No I wasn't, I said the CCC has no mandate - from the electorate, and the phrase 'elected representatives' is used to purify ACL - to make decisions on the RICOH.

 

[oakey]

No I wasn't, I said the CCC had no mandate - from the electorate, and the phrase 'elected representatives' is used to purify ACL - to make decisions on the RICOH.

You should have said "electoral mandate" since the word mandate can mean "authority to act concerning"
In either case, of course a council has a mandate to act to protect a facility it part owns. It has a clear public duty to ensure a public asset is protected and to ensure the development of that part of Coventry is protected.
Do you think Coventry council tax payers want them to ignore their responsibilities?
Of course you may argue CCC are not acting legally or in the best interests of their electorate. The courts will decide the former and the electorate the latter.

 

[sky blue john]

it's not worth responding to some of the ridiculous comments i have seen on this thread from the usual suspects !!!!

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

Not really. A party voted in on it's manifesto, no matter how vague it is, has a mandate to make changes to the constitution, economy etc. but Labour weren't voted on any promises to do with the RICOH, so this 'elected body' nonsense doesn't hold much weight in this scenario.

Anyway, careerist politicians can be just as bad 'Mayfair hedge funds'. - I wouldn't want neither dealing with the RICOH, but that's what we've dealt.

I think that this a little disingenuous. All political party manifestos only cover the major planks of their party policy and governments and local authorities have much greater overriding responsibilities than can be detailed in a few pages of text. In this case CCC have a responsibility to manage, to the best of their ability, all of the assets held in the name of the city, of which the Arena is only one of many. At the time of the last elections I imagine getting embroiled in the current situation with the Arena was not on their horizon as they had much bigger issues to contend with. However when the problems arose they had a responsibility to deal with it to the best of their ability. We might not like the manner or methods they used but to imply that they should simply ignore it is a facile expectation.

 

[torchomatic]

One chases the pound the other chases the vote. Both as bad as each other and equally as corrupt.

 

[oakey]

One chases the pound the other chases the vote. Both as bad as each other and equally as corrupt.

Maybe, but the latter is under much greater public scrutiny than the former, and cannot move away.

 

[Houdi]

Totally missed my point, as per usual, which was about accountability and transparency. Publicly elected officials are far more altruistic than a private equity firm whose only loyalty is to money and profit. Anyone who claims to be a Socialist should at least comprehend that-ideologically, you are entirely opposed to the very existence of private equity :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about:

Are they though? They may claim to be,but recent history would hardly bare that out.3 MP's in the last parliament ended up in prison for fiddling their expenses.God knows how Margaret Moran escaped a custodial sentence,Dennis Mcshane had to resign indisgrace recently,and there are many more MP's of all parties that could easily have gone to prison.
What is it 17/18 years that the EU's own internal auditors have refused to sign of the accounts because of the huge misappropriation of funds.Billions euros are simply not accounted for,year after year,taxpayers money yet how many people have been held to account.

 

[torchomatic]

And they just have to say "sorry, I made an error of judgement" and then carry on as normal.

Maybe, but the latter is under much greater public scrutiny than the former, and cannot move away.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Maybe, but the latter is under much greater public scrutiny than the former, and cannot move away.

But do the public care enough to carry out scrutiny of CCC's actions. Look at the reaction on here after SISU took CCC to court over the ACL bail out, if CCC have done nothing wrong, that's ok, but what if they have, the people who criticised the decision obviously didn't care about scrutiny and accountability of decisions, two vital attributes of democracy. For the record, I can't see a outcome where CCC have broke the law, but I'm more than happy to see them took to court to account for their actions, to see if they've done something wrong, after all, 14m is a lot of money and the CCC shouldn't be able to 'just' spend like that without scrutiny...

On a national scale, Britain isn't really a democracy, but rather an elected dictatorship, as the FPTP system allows big majorities on small proportion of votes, alongside other things like; uncodified constitution, unelected Head of State and 2nd Chamber, whip system and fusion of powers etc. (sidenote: yet Grendel & psgm had the cheek to call Venezuela undemocratic!?).

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Southampton preferred administration in fact.

Southampton didn't prefer administration....what a ludicrous statement. I'm sure it was reported by the local Southampton rag that Rupert Lowe wanted more money from SISU for control of SFC but SISU said no. I can't speak for the Man City case but Southampton most definitely didn't 'prefer' administration.

WM

 

[Deleted member 5849]

They had a choice of the SISU deal or administration.

They chose administration.

 

[Mr T - Sukka!]

Its my view that the council should have nothing to do with a football club. They should be completey independant from one another. The only link should be the city/town they both find themselves in.

A well run football club should own its stadium and have money set aside for when needed.

CCFC have niether. The council have thier own agenda for the ricoh as they contributed when CCFC couldnt. Now its a tangled mess.

The day CCFC sold the ground they OWED, has led to where we are now.

Its CCFCs fault 100%.

Now the real question is who was on the board amd who was chairman at the time?

They have some serious questions to answer for this mess today!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Its my view that the council should have nothing to do with a football club. They should be completey independant from one another. The only link should be the city/town they both find themselves in.

A well run football club should own its stadium and have money set aside for when needed.

CCFC have niether. The council have thier own agenda for the ricoh as they contributed when CCFC couldnt. Now its a tangled mess.

The day CCFC sold the ground they OWED, has led to where we are now.

Its CCFCs fault 100%.

Now the real question is who was on the board amd who was chairman at the time?

They have some serious questions to answer for this mess today!

I agree with most of that, on one hand, we have a council with a clear conflict of interest, but on the other, completely incompetent owners for as long as I've supported the club and before that as well, we have the worst of both worlds, sadly, but for many people, they only see only 1 'worst world'.

 

[CCFC PimpRail]

The council shouldn't be there to bolster incompetent owners. I don't even think they should actively be seen to support football teams. Why not ballot council tax payers and ask if their money should go to CCFC, but then again we all know what the answer will be.

You could argue the cost per household would be a lot less than what we pay for a Fire Service or Royal Family, but I can see an advantage in having those....

 

[Grendel]

The council shouldn't be there to bolster incompetent owners. I don't even think they should actively be seen to support football teams. Why not ballot council tax payers and ask if their money should go to CCFC, but then again we all know what the answer will be.

You could argue the cost per household would be a lot less than what we pay for a Fire Service or Royal Family, but I can see an advantage in having those....

They have made significant money from the sale of the land to Tescos. The notion they have ever subsidised the club is laughable.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The council shouldn't be there to bolster incompetent owners. I don't even think they should actively be seen to support football teams. Why not ballot council tax payers and ask if their money should go to CCFC, but then again we all know what the answer will be.

You could argue the cost per household would be a lot less than what we pay for a Fire Service or Royal Family, but I can see an advantage in having those....

What!?

There's no advantage of having a monarchy, none whatsoever, the whole monarchy debate is flawed on the royalist side... The Windsors should've been the first thing the Tories cut, biggest scrounges in this country, oh god, you've got me started! Off with their heads! Vive le republique!

 

[CCFC PimpRail]

What about the revenue from tourism that the Royal family bring...? And as for Tesco's, they paid a fair market rate for commercial land that could have gone to a rival or stayed as wasteland. You dont hear of them refusing to pay rent and still not agreeing to a debt payment over 10 years and rent at a third of what it was, unlike their neighbours...

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

What about the revenue from tourism that the Royal family bring...? And as for Tesco's, they paid a fair market rate for commercial land that could have gone to a rival or stayed as wasteland. You dont hear of them refusing to pay rent and still not agreeing to a debt payment over 10 years and rent at a third of what it was, unlike their neighbours...

The Royal Family doesn't bring in tourism. Firstly, London is a 'super city' that people will visit/conduct business with or without a monarchy. Secondly, people will continue to visit Buckingham Palace, without or without a monarchy, look at China who have guided tours around the Fobidden Kingdom, if the Britain adopted this, the tourism trade will be boosted. As for merchandise, who says we have stop selling merchandise? Even then, we could sell merchandise to celebrate getting rid of the monarchy.

Of the top tourist destinations in the UK, only 2/20 are crown lands.

 

[luwalla]

And they just have to say "sorry, I made an error of judgement" and then carry on as normal.

haha about sums it up..

politicians - steal your money to pay for their big mansions & subscription porn. then hold their hands up to their mistake, say sorry & its all forgotten a few months later

SISU - plough millions into your club, but make mistakes along the way.. hold their hands up & say sorry but we will put it right..and we are still berating them years later

I dont think anyone here supports sisu's past actions.. but lets get some clarity on the situation, the sun does not shine out of the councils rear end either! and people trying to make out that everything they do must be legit, above board & for the benefit of the people , is just laughable

Have the council done enough for this club ?.. they have made massive mistakes along the way.. they didnt put any money into this project ( they were simply guarantors to the initial loan ) even now, they used taxpayers money to bail out ACL ( and who knows if that loan / deal is going to be beneficial to taxpayers or not ! ).. so in a word, No i dont believe they have

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Who can say who the right owners and people are though?

Five years ago the overwhelming majority would have said that Sisu were.

Some of us were against SISU before they even got the club. Due Diligence online and court documents highlighted their nasty business practices. Demanding everyone's shares for nothing confirmed for me that they intended to continue using their standard operating procedure with our club. Everything they have done since taking over the club has confirmed the worst fears.
Hedge funds generally - and those like SISU in particular - do not belong in football as owners.
I have never accepted that SISU "saved" us. I am quite confident that there were potential buyers waiting in the wings for us to go into administration. SISU did not save us, they are killing us.

 

[luwalla]

Hedge funds generally - and those like SISU in particular - do not belong in football as owners.

fair comment.. cant argue with that

 

[lordsummerisle]

What about the revenue from tourism that the Royal family bring...? .

Good point, don't think that France or the USA have seen one tourist since their respective revolutions, and Spain gets all it's tourists purely because of it's monarchy.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Some of us were against SISU before they even got the club. Due Diligence online and court documents highlighted their nasty business practices. Demanding everyone's shares for nothing confirmed for me that they intended to continue using their standard operating procedure with our club. Everything they have done since taking over the club has confirmed the worst fears.
Hedge funds generally - and those like SISU in particular - do not belong in football as owners.
I have never accepted that SISU "saved" us. I am quite confident that there were potential buyers waiting in the wings for us to go into administration. SISU did not save us, they are killing us.

Some of us were, but as I said the vast majority weren't despite some people trying to rewrite history.

 

[Grendel]

Some of us were, but as I said the vast majority weren't despite some people trying to rewrite history.

Funny no-one wanted them in now. Must have dreamt Ranson's standing ovation at the Man City game.

 

[singers_pore]

Do you know what mandate means?

Is it something to do with being a rent boy?

 

[torchomatic]

Mmm...so I wonder why SISU were the Council's "preferred" bidder then? Obviously they did as much due diligence on SISU as SISU did on Coventry City!

As for the "they saved us" bit. I would imagine people need to be careful then when new owners come in as they will get inundated with "I told you so's" if it all goes pear shaped.

I have never accepted that SISU "saved" us. I am quite confident that there were potential buyers waiting in the wings for us to go into administration. SISU did not save us, they are killing us.

 

[dongonzalos]

Mmm...so I wonder why SISU were the Council's "preferred" bidder then? Obviously they did as much due diligence on SISU as SISU did on Coventry City!

As for the "they saved us" bit. I would imagine people need to be careful then when new owners come in as they will get inundated with "I told you so's" if it all goes pear shaped.

They were the only ones crazy enough to bid before administration. Most rationale business people would have waited a day or two.

Who did the council prefer them over at the time?

 

[Grendel]

They were the only ones crazy enough to bid before administration. Most rationale business people would have waited a day or two.

Who did the council prefer them over at the time?

The only other bidder was a consortium headed by Robinson. It terms of real losses on a monthly basis the club was in a desperate mess.

SISU were their preferred bidder I would imagine as they were the only ones likely then to pay the extortionate rent.

 

[torchomatic]

SBK is usually happy to tell us of all the other bidders waiting in the wings. Still doesn't explain why CCC CHOSE SISU though.

They were the only ones crazy enough to bid before administration. Most rationale business people would have waited a day or two.

Who did the council prefer them over at the time?

 

[dongonzalos]

SBK is usually happy to tell us of all the other bidders waiting in the wings. Still doesn't explain why CCC CHOSE SISU though.

Presumably they have to go with the option that does not want to allow the club to go into admin as more people will get a greater amount of their money back?