fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I think you're correct but I am waiting for those who know a lot better to tell me otherwise.
The war is over, time for the peace treaty (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Godiva
- Start date
I think you're correct but I am waiting for those who know a lot better to tell me otherwise.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
But their are more and most likely better/safer alternatives for the club than returning with shitsu at the helm of both club and stadium. yes in this scenario at some point likely to sell one or both but i bet my bottom dollar they saddle the club with record drbt before they do while joy & Co take record paydays from the club and stadium.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Ahh nuts....
I'll take it as a perfect 4/4 for now and check back later to see if someone's moved the goal posts....
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Oooh....look...someone has already moved a goal post...
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
1. Just ignore the (with a rent paying tenant) bit, it's not as if it's fundamental to the statement.
2. Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903. The figures aren't available for last season but you'd probably expect a drop to around the £100k mark based on average gates.
3. I'd say it is extremely unlikely. Although Nuneaton Borough's meteoric rise to the top of the Conference may continue.:thinking about:
I agree with you, the club is already saddled with massive debt which will not just disappear.
What a mess for all parties. No winners from this not least of all me or you or any of the other lunatics on here.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
On the other hand how much are SISU running at a loss by taking us to Northampton.
Their accounts and legal running of the club are coming under scrutiny.
Also actions they took during the a legal process called administration.
They are not clear yet of legally binding contracts and long leases.
They wriggle, are hard nosed, and clever....but do make mistakes..big ones!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
My original text in black
NorthernWisdoms comments in blue
My response in red
It's been a long battle and the collateral losses are unbelievable.
Inarguable.
It started with the mismanagement that lead to the club selling Highfield Road and then all stakes in the Ricoh Areana even before a ball was kicked in our state of the art stadium. From that point it was ever really going to one way route to the bottom. With not enough income to cover the costs of the ambition to get back 'where we belong' the club has been losing money each and every year for too many years. Different managements have tried different strategies, but nothing has really worked out. The financial crisis was like a turbo accelerating the drive downhill.
Indeed. I remember saying when tghe club was set to move it was all very well selling the move on the back of increased gates, but as soon as all revenues bar ticket sales were sold off, increased gates became a bit redundant really.
The last battle has been especially exhausting and caused incredible damage (we all know the score) and I can't help using a metaphor: This must be what Coventry looked like in 1945. I am NOT trying to invoke Goodwins law already, but to hint there may be a brighter future ahead.
Incredible damage indeed.
To end the downward spiral the club need to sit in its own stadium again. The club need to profit from each and every penny being spend by customers in the compound.
It does
And the final battle was all about making sure this could happen.
Well, yes and no. I'd argue it was making sure the club became saleable. Within that, certain benefits to the club might intersect... that's been the straw to cling to throughout SISU's tenure mind you.
From the club owners perspective it was all about taking over ACL or break the lease that bound the club as tenants for the next 40+ years. From the stadium owners perspective it was all about making sure the current club owners didn't take over ACL and make sure the club was taken over by the Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel consortium.
In this, where criticism has been (rightly) aimed at SISU, I fear this has gone largely without comment, that much as SISU manipulated a situation of 'only alternative', there have been attempts to do similar with Haskell/Hoffman/Elliott. Frankly, they're not the only alternative, and nor should they be. Looking forward, a clean break should be a clean break.
There are other alternatives, but maybe not as well connected to CCc members as Hoffman/Elliott?
Now that battle is over the club owners achieved one victory: The lease is broken and the club is now in a position to move from tenants to owners of the stadium they play in. Either by building a new or taking over ACL (which isn't actually owning the stadium per se, but you know what I mean). On the other hand ACL lost their main tenants, the main purpose for the stadium, and their stakeholders like Compass, the Casino and all other businesses that profitted from the customers the club brought to them have lost a significant future income.
I do get the theoretical point. I still struggle to be convinced the plan B of new stadium would happen though. pictures, details, and it'd have a positive effect in encouraging some more to go to Sixfields now, so it's not in their interest to hold them back if they exist.
In the coming months we will most likely see and hear very little from the club owners - as usual.
But at the stadium side I expect quite a lot of activity. The stadium owners can surely not be happy with the outcome of this last battle with the club. They backed ACL's plan to replace sisu with new owners ... Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel the most promising prospects. So they took over the mortgage from YB - and in return got an invitation to visit the High Court to fight the legallity. They may have 'won' the first round there, but there may be more to come. And it doesn't look good when a council is summoned to a high court ... when there's smoke, there's bound to be fire somewhere.
Hmmm. Unfortunately isn't this he point of the JR application, to introduce an element of smoke without fire? Having been thrown out (note, an application to go before a proper hearing, so not even thrown out at the hearing's stage!) it's safe to say in this particular instance, there is no smoke.
But the JR IS the smoke ... whether there was ever a fire remains to be seen. It may well be sisu's sole purpose just to send up smoke, but for somebody from the outside ... or even on this board in a year or two ... there will be this notion that there could possibly have been some kind of foul play. That uncertainty is a liability to involved politicians.
The council also backed ACL in pushing the club into administration, losing all hope of promotion last term. Then they backed ACL when they refused to let the club exit administration causing the club to start the new season with a 10 point handicap ensuring a challeging new season.
All for nothing. sisu are still club owners.
Promotion, relegation, irrelevant to me if the foundations of the club are solid. They're not, and regardless of that, promotion last season was a long shot anyway. As for motivation? I do buy into the 'desire to manipulate a preferred owner' narrative and, IMHO, that needs some digging too. However, it's also undeniable that in a business sense if you're owed money, what are you to do but try and get it back? Rejecting the CVA is maybe more damning, but as the football league ordered them to pay that settlement to ACL anyway (why on earth was this ordered?!?) then from ACL's POV, why wouldn't you reject the CVA? What was in it to accept it? The club breaks its contract, if you get the minimum settlemnent anyway, you may as well fight it further. In business terms, this surely makes absolute sense?
I agree with what you say ... but here is where business and politics don't really mix. ACL did what they should from a pure business perspective, but doing so their half-owners ended up facing the community asset stripped from its purpose, the club playing 35 miles away, the fans (mostly their own constituents) in uproar and a newly acquired loan that is now possibly a bit toxic. That by any means is not looking good for any politicians.
So expect new ACL management in the not too far future. The first sign is CCc members wanting to look into the long term 'sustainabillity' of ACL. But in fact, that is simply the first step to remove the management. The ball is rolling.
Isn't it as simple as politicking beginning? We saw when the Ricoh was built how sides partitioned for and against alongside lines of political advantage. Isn't this just more of the same? It does lead onto...
And as the club continue to play in Northampton and when there are no more ACL vs Otium skirmishes the council need to back, I will expect a few council members will start to look into the ownership structure of ACL. We already know Higgs want out ... I can imagine the CCc wanting out too. ACL have become a political liability.
No more skirmishes? With the CVA rejected, surely room for plenty more skirmishes!
Well - the main battle is over. What skirmishes that are left are merely sideshows. I hazard a guess and say Appeltons report into the actions of present and future directors will not lead to sisu leaving or the administration process start over. I also guess sisu won't have any more luck in High court with their JR. ACL will - surely? - not sue Northampton. And all the static noises made about the FA/FL can only influence the future rules and regulations - not change the present status of ccfc.
I hope the final peace treaty will include ACL being sold to Otium or SBS&L.
Depends how. I remain to be convinced that owning ACL with their contract as is, is useful for the football club. It's a relatively short contract left for ACL, not appealing for owners wanting to sell on. Interesting you give an 'or' about who to sell it to also, as any deal must surely be specific, making sure it's sold first and foremost to the club.
According to Fisher, sisu and CCc agreed HoT for negotiations and actions that should lead to ccfc owning (at least 50% of) ACL. They should go back to that point and reopen the talks and adjust the HoT to the current situation. In my mind ACL should be owned by either Otium or SBS&L - not sisu or ARVO.
This will effectively end the downward spiral and bring the team back to the city.
But don't take too long ... if the Council fail to come to terms with sisu, a new stadium will be build and the Ricoh may end as a financial libility as well as a political fiasco.
Back to that new stadium. We wait and see... but you would have to accept the evidence of that happening suggests it's the unlikely alternative as of yet? Surely the more likely choices are club united with Ricoh, or club dies... rather than this third way?
I hope we return to the Ricoh, but if not a new stadium could work out fine.
NorthernWisdoms comments in blue
My response in red
It's been a long battle and the collateral losses are unbelievable.
Inarguable.
It started with the mismanagement that lead to the club selling Highfield Road and then all stakes in the Ricoh Areana even before a ball was kicked in our state of the art stadium. From that point it was ever really going to one way route to the bottom. With not enough income to cover the costs of the ambition to get back 'where we belong' the club has been losing money each and every year for too many years. Different managements have tried different strategies, but nothing has really worked out. The financial crisis was like a turbo accelerating the drive downhill.
Indeed. I remember saying when tghe club was set to move it was all very well selling the move on the back of increased gates, but as soon as all revenues bar ticket sales were sold off, increased gates became a bit redundant really.
The last battle has been especially exhausting and caused incredible damage (we all know the score) and I can't help using a metaphor: This must be what Coventry looked like in 1945. I am NOT trying to invoke Goodwins law already, but to hint there may be a brighter future ahead.
Incredible damage indeed.
To end the downward spiral the club need to sit in its own stadium again. The club need to profit from each and every penny being spend by customers in the compound.
It does
And the final battle was all about making sure this could happen.
Well, yes and no. I'd argue it was making sure the club became saleable. Within that, certain benefits to the club might intersect... that's been the straw to cling to throughout SISU's tenure mind you.
From the club owners perspective it was all about taking over ACL or break the lease that bound the club as tenants for the next 40+ years. From the stadium owners perspective it was all about making sure the current club owners didn't take over ACL and make sure the club was taken over by the Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel consortium.
In this, where criticism has been (rightly) aimed at SISU, I fear this has gone largely without comment, that much as SISU manipulated a situation of 'only alternative', there have been attempts to do similar with Haskell/Hoffman/Elliott. Frankly, they're not the only alternative, and nor should they be. Looking forward, a clean break should be a clean break.
There are other alternatives, but maybe not as well connected to CCc members as Hoffman/Elliott?
Now that battle is over the club owners achieved one victory: The lease is broken and the club is now in a position to move from tenants to owners of the stadium they play in. Either by building a new or taking over ACL (which isn't actually owning the stadium per se, but you know what I mean). On the other hand ACL lost their main tenants, the main purpose for the stadium, and their stakeholders like Compass, the Casino and all other businesses that profitted from the customers the club brought to them have lost a significant future income.
I do get the theoretical point. I still struggle to be convinced the plan B of new stadium would happen though. pictures, details, and it'd have a positive effect in encouraging some more to go to Sixfields now, so it's not in their interest to hold them back if they exist.
In the coming months we will most likely see and hear very little from the club owners - as usual.
But at the stadium side I expect quite a lot of activity. The stadium owners can surely not be happy with the outcome of this last battle with the club. They backed ACL's plan to replace sisu with new owners ... Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel the most promising prospects. So they took over the mortgage from YB - and in return got an invitation to visit the High Court to fight the legallity. They may have 'won' the first round there, but there may be more to come. And it doesn't look good when a council is summoned to a high court ... when there's smoke, there's bound to be fire somewhere.
Hmmm. Unfortunately isn't this he point of the JR application, to introduce an element of smoke without fire? Having been thrown out (note, an application to go before a proper hearing, so not even thrown out at the hearing's stage!) it's safe to say in this particular instance, there is no smoke.
But the JR IS the smoke ... whether there was ever a fire remains to be seen. It may well be sisu's sole purpose just to send up smoke, but for somebody from the outside ... or even on this board in a year or two ... there will be this notion that there could possibly have been some kind of foul play. That uncertainty is a liability to involved politicians.
The council also backed ACL in pushing the club into administration, losing all hope of promotion last term. Then they backed ACL when they refused to let the club exit administration causing the club to start the new season with a 10 point handicap ensuring a challeging new season.
All for nothing. sisu are still club owners.
Promotion, relegation, irrelevant to me if the foundations of the club are solid. They're not, and regardless of that, promotion last season was a long shot anyway. As for motivation? I do buy into the 'desire to manipulate a preferred owner' narrative and, IMHO, that needs some digging too. However, it's also undeniable that in a business sense if you're owed money, what are you to do but try and get it back? Rejecting the CVA is maybe more damning, but as the football league ordered them to pay that settlement to ACL anyway (why on earth was this ordered?!?) then from ACL's POV, why wouldn't you reject the CVA? What was in it to accept it? The club breaks its contract, if you get the minimum settlemnent anyway, you may as well fight it further. In business terms, this surely makes absolute sense?
I agree with what you say ... but here is where business and politics don't really mix. ACL did what they should from a pure business perspective, but doing so their half-owners ended up facing the community asset stripped from its purpose, the club playing 35 miles away, the fans (mostly their own constituents) in uproar and a newly acquired loan that is now possibly a bit toxic. That by any means is not looking good for any politicians.
So expect new ACL management in the not too far future. The first sign is CCc members wanting to look into the long term 'sustainabillity' of ACL. But in fact, that is simply the first step to remove the management. The ball is rolling.
Isn't it as simple as politicking beginning? We saw when the Ricoh was built how sides partitioned for and against alongside lines of political advantage. Isn't this just more of the same? It does lead onto...
And as the club continue to play in Northampton and when there are no more ACL vs Otium skirmishes the council need to back, I will expect a few council members will start to look into the ownership structure of ACL. We already know Higgs want out ... I can imagine the CCc wanting out too. ACL have become a political liability.
No more skirmishes? With the CVA rejected, surely room for plenty more skirmishes!
Well - the main battle is over. What skirmishes that are left are merely sideshows. I hazard a guess and say Appeltons report into the actions of present and future directors will not lead to sisu leaving or the administration process start over. I also guess sisu won't have any more luck in High court with their JR. ACL will - surely? - not sue Northampton. And all the static noises made about the FA/FL can only influence the future rules and regulations - not change the present status of ccfc.
I hope the final peace treaty will include ACL being sold to Otium or SBS&L.
Depends how. I remain to be convinced that owning ACL with their contract as is, is useful for the football club. It's a relatively short contract left for ACL, not appealing for owners wanting to sell on. Interesting you give an 'or' about who to sell it to also, as any deal must surely be specific, making sure it's sold first and foremost to the club.
According to Fisher, sisu and CCc agreed HoT for negotiations and actions that should lead to ccfc owning (at least 50% of) ACL. They should go back to that point and reopen the talks and adjust the HoT to the current situation. In my mind ACL should be owned by either Otium or SBS&L - not sisu or ARVO.
This will effectively end the downward spiral and bring the team back to the city.
But don't take too long ... if the Council fail to come to terms with sisu, a new stadium will be build and the Ricoh may end as a financial libility as well as a political fiasco.
Back to that new stadium. We wait and see... but you would have to accept the evidence of that happening suggests it's the unlikely alternative as of yet? Surely the more likely choices are club united with Ricoh, or club dies... rather than this third way?
I hope we return to the Ricoh, but if not a new stadium could work out fine.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
jimmyhillsfanclub .....................................First answer false...No rent been paid for well over 1 year.
Not strictly true, is it?
ACL emptied the escrow account for £500k and then got £530k from the administration. In addition they took the amount available on the clubs bank account at a given date - with the blessing of the court.
The Bear
New Member
Godiva (original):
In the coming months we will most likely see and hear very little from the club owners - as usual.
But at the stadium side I expect quite a lot of activity. The stadium owners can surely not be happy with the outcome of this last battle with the club. They backed ACL's plan to replace sisu with new owners ... Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel the most promising prospects. So they took over the mortgage from YB - and in return got an invitation to visit the High Court to fight the legallity. They may have 'won' the first round there, but there may be more to come. And it doesn't look good when a council is summoned to a high court ... when there's smoke, there's bound to be fire somewhere.
Deleted member 5849:
Hmmm. Unfortunately isn't this he point of the JR application, to introduce an element of smoke without fire? Having been thrown out (note, an application to go before a proper hearing, so not even thrown out at the hearing's stage!) it's safe to say in this particular instance, there is no smoke.
Godiva (reply):
But the JR IS the smoke ... whether there was ever a fire remains to be seen. It may well be sisu's sole purpose just to send up smoke, but for somebody from the outside ... or even on this board in a year or two ... there will be this notion that there could possibly have been some kind of foul play. That uncertainty is a liability to involved politicians.
The Bear weighs in...
You're actually arguing against yourself here by admitting that Sisu's legal tactics are to discredit the Council rather than for any legitimate grievance.
Overall – and I don't want to make assumptions here so maybe you can put me right if needs be – you seem to be coming from a position that the business (in this case Sisu) approach is better than the democratic (the Council) approach. Without wanting to mini-Godwin this, possibly a Thatcherite/Libertarian view? Small government and allowing the invisible hand of the free market & all that?
In the coming months we will most likely see and hear very little from the club owners - as usual.
But at the stadium side I expect quite a lot of activity. The stadium owners can surely not be happy with the outcome of this last battle with the club. They backed ACL's plan to replace sisu with new owners ... Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel the most promising prospects. So they took over the mortgage from YB - and in return got an invitation to visit the High Court to fight the legallity. They may have 'won' the first round there, but there may be more to come. And it doesn't look good when a council is summoned to a high court ... when there's smoke, there's bound to be fire somewhere.
Deleted member 5849:
Hmmm. Unfortunately isn't this he point of the JR application, to introduce an element of smoke without fire? Having been thrown out (note, an application to go before a proper hearing, so not even thrown out at the hearing's stage!) it's safe to say in this particular instance, there is no smoke.
Godiva (reply):
But the JR IS the smoke ... whether there was ever a fire remains to be seen. It may well be sisu's sole purpose just to send up smoke, but for somebody from the outside ... or even on this board in a year or two ... there will be this notion that there could possibly have been some kind of foul play. That uncertainty is a liability to involved politicians.
The Bear weighs in...
You're actually arguing against yourself here by admitting that Sisu's legal tactics are to discredit the Council rather than for any legitimate grievance.
Overall – and I don't want to make assumptions here so maybe you can put me right if needs be – you seem to be coming from a position that the business (in this case Sisu) approach is better than the democratic (the Council) approach. Without wanting to mini-Godwin this, possibly a Thatcherite/Libertarian view? Small government and allowing the invisible hand of the free market & all that?
hill83
Well-Known Member
Sshhhhhhhhhhhhh
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Godiva (original):
In the coming months we will most likely see and hear very little from the club owners - as usual.
But at the stadium side I expect quite a lot of activity. The stadium owners can surely not be happy with the outcome of this last battle with the club. They backed ACL's plan to replace sisu with new owners ... Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel the most promising prospects. So they took over the mortgage from YB - and in return got an invitation to visit the High Court to fight the legallity. They may have 'won' the first round there, but there may be more to come. And it doesn't look good when a council is summoned to a high court ... when there's smoke, there's bound to be fire somewhere.
Deleted member 5849:
Hmmm. Unfortunately isn't this he point of the JR application, to introduce an element of smoke without fire? Having been thrown out (note, an application to go before a proper hearing, so not even thrown out at the hearing's stage!) it's safe to say in this particular instance, there is no smoke.
Godiva (reply):
But the JR IS the smoke ... whether there was ever a fire remains to be seen. It may well be sisu's sole purpose just to send up smoke, but for somebody from the outside ... or even on this board in a year or two ... there will be this notion that there could possibly have been some kind of foul play. That uncertainty is a liability to involved politicians.
The Bear weighs in...
You're actually arguing against yourself here by admitting that Sisu's legal tactics are to discredit the Council rather than for any legitimate grievance.
Overall – and I don't want to make assumptions here so maybe you can put me right if needs be – you seem to be coming from a position that the business (in this case Sisu) approach is better than the democratic (the Council) approach. Without wanting to mini-Godwin this, possibly a Thatcherite/Libertarian view? Small government and allowing the invisible hand of the free market & all that?
This could get an epic colour scheme.
In the coming months we will most likely see and hear very little from the club owners - as usual.
But at the stadium side I expect quite a lot of activity. The stadium owners can surely not be happy with the outcome of this last battle with the club. They backed ACL's plan to replace sisu with new owners ... Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel the most promising prospects. So they took over the mortgage from YB - and in return got an invitation to visit the High Court to fight the legallity. They may have 'won' the first round there, but there may be more to come. And it doesn't look good when a council is summoned to a high court ... when there's smoke, there's bound to be fire somewhere.
Deleted member 5849:
Hmmm. Unfortunately isn't this he point of the JR application, to introduce an element of smoke without fire? Having been thrown out (note, an application to go before a proper hearing, so not even thrown out at the hearing's stage!) it's safe to say in this particular instance, there is no smoke.
Godiva (reply):
But the JR IS the smoke ... whether there was ever a fire remains to be seen. It may well be sisu's sole purpose just to send up smoke, but for somebody from the outside ... or even on this board in a year or two ... there will be this notion that there could possibly have been some kind of foul play. That uncertainty is a liability to involved politicians.
The Bear weighs in...
You're actually arguing against yourself here by admitting that Sisu's legal tactics are to discredit the Council rather than for any legitimate grievance.
Overall – and I don't want to make assumptions here so maybe you can put me right if needs be – you seem to be coming from a position that the business (in this case Sisu) approach is better than the democratic (the Council) approach. Without wanting to mini-Godwin this, possibly a Thatcherite/Libertarian view? Small government and allowing the invisible hand of the free market & all that?
This could get an epic colour scheme.
Godiva (original):
In the coming months we will most likely see and hear very little from the club owners - as usual.
But at the stadium side I expect quite a lot of activity. The stadium owners can surely not be happy with the outcome of this last battle with the club. They backed ACL's plan to replace sisu with new owners ... Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel the most promising prospects. So they took over the mortgage from YB - and in return got an invitation to visit the High Court to fight the legallity. They may have 'won' the first round there, but there may be more to come. And it doesn't look good when a council is summoned to a high court ... when there's smoke, there's bound to be fire somewhere.
Deleted member 5849:
Hmmm. Unfortunately isn't this he point of the JR application, to introduce an element of smoke without fire? Having been thrown out (note, an application to go before a proper hearing, so not even thrown out at the hearing's stage!) it's safe to say in this particular instance, there is no smoke.
Godiva (reply):
But the JR IS the smoke ... whether there was ever a fire remains to be seen. It may well be sisu's sole purpose just to send up smoke, but for somebody from the outside ... or even on this board in a year or two ... there will be this notion that there could possibly have been some kind of foul play. That uncertainty is a liability to involved politicians.
The Bear weighs in...
You're actually arguing against yourself here by admitting that Sisu's legal tactics are to discredit the Council rather than for any legitimate grievance.
I don't think I am, as I have never condoned or applauded the methods of sisu ... but I admit I will be grateful if they succeed in uniting club and stadium.
Overall – and I don't want to make assumptions here so maybe you can put me right if needs be – you seem to be coming from a position that the business (in this case Sisu) approach is better than the democratic (the Council) approach. Without wanting to mini-Godwin this, possibly a Thatcherite/Libertarian view? Small government and allowing the invisible hand of the free market & all that?
In my mind you can't really mix business and politics like the way ACL is set up - even add a charity to the mix and at some point it's bound to explode ... or implode.
Any organization or business need to have one overruling purpose. In business it's usually profitability - in politics it's usually getting votes. One is not better than the other - it's fine for the council to own the bricks and mortar of the community asset - and as long as it serves the community the politicians are not losing votes.
This could get an epic colour scheme.
Hard to read that colour.
In the coming months we will most likely see and hear very little from the club owners - as usual.
But at the stadium side I expect quite a lot of activity. The stadium owners can surely not be happy with the outcome of this last battle with the club. They backed ACL's plan to replace sisu with new owners ... Hoffman/Elliott/Haskel the most promising prospects. So they took over the mortgage from YB - and in return got an invitation to visit the High Court to fight the legallity. They may have 'won' the first round there, but there may be more to come. And it doesn't look good when a council is summoned to a high court ... when there's smoke, there's bound to be fire somewhere.
Deleted member 5849:
Hmmm. Unfortunately isn't this he point of the JR application, to introduce an element of smoke without fire? Having been thrown out (note, an application to go before a proper hearing, so not even thrown out at the hearing's stage!) it's safe to say in this particular instance, there is no smoke.
Godiva (reply):
But the JR IS the smoke ... whether there was ever a fire remains to be seen. It may well be sisu's sole purpose just to send up smoke, but for somebody from the outside ... or even on this board in a year or two ... there will be this notion that there could possibly have been some kind of foul play. That uncertainty is a liability to involved politicians.
The Bear weighs in...
You're actually arguing against yourself here by admitting that Sisu's legal tactics are to discredit the Council rather than for any legitimate grievance.
I don't think I am, as I have never condoned or applauded the methods of sisu ... but I admit I will be grateful if they succeed in uniting club and stadium.
Overall – and I don't want to make assumptions here so maybe you can put me right if needs be – you seem to be coming from a position that the business (in this case Sisu) approach is better than the democratic (the Council) approach. Without wanting to mini-Godwin this, possibly a Thatcherite/Libertarian view? Small government and allowing the invisible hand of the free market & all that?
In my mind you can't really mix business and politics like the way ACL is set up - even add a charity to the mix and at some point it's bound to explode ... or implode.
Any organization or business need to have one overruling purpose. In business it's usually profitability - in politics it's usually getting votes. One is not better than the other - it's fine for the council to own the bricks and mortar of the community asset - and as long as it serves the community the politicians are not losing votes.
This could get an epic colour scheme.
Hard to read that colour.
Nick
Administrator
What makes him a WUM? I don't get it? Because you don't agree with him?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
stupot07
Well-Known Member
You have to ask serious questions about ACL/Compass's F&B business model given they only make around 10% on F&B'S. they should be making 50-60% profit on F&B's. I wonder whether there are any management costs slapped up on that?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Godiva:
In my mind you can't really mix business and politics like the way ACL is set up - even add a charity to the mix and at some point it's bound to explode ... or implode.
Any organization or business need to have one overruling purpose. In business it's usually profitability - in politics it's usually getting votes. One is not better than the other - it's fine for the council to own the bricks and mortar of the community asset - and as long as it serves the community the politicians are not losing votes.
Isn't that the problem with a football club being owned by a business though, that the needs of club and business don't intersect? Admittedly this isn't a problem unique to CCFC...
In my mind you can't really mix business and politics like the way ACL is set up - even add a charity to the mix and at some point it's bound to explode ... or implode.
Any organization or business need to have one overruling purpose. In business it's usually profitability - in politics it's usually getting votes. One is not better than the other - it's fine for the council to own the bricks and mortar of the community asset - and as long as it serves the community the politicians are not losing votes.
Isn't that the problem with a football club being owned by a business though, that the needs of club and business don't intersect? Admittedly this isn't a problem unique to CCFC...
The Bear
New Member
"This could get an epic colour scheme."
This genuinely made me laugh out loud (once I'd selected it so I could see it).
Godwin:
I completely agree that the club and stadium should be united (cityed?) but I just can't see Sisu being the ones to trust doing it. They *could* do it, but the cost to the local taxpayer would be completely unfair. I think this is the crux of what we disagree on.
Re: the council/business combination; IIRC the previous & current government were/are all about local authorities running some local amenities to supplement their tax/grant income so the issue is also about what is being encouraged nationally too (in these Big Society times).
This genuinely made me laugh out loud (once I'd selected it so I could see it).
Godwin:
I completely agree that the club and stadium should be united (cityed?) but I just can't see Sisu being the ones to trust doing it. They *could* do it, but the cost to the local taxpayer would be completely unfair. I think this is the crux of what we disagree on.
Re: the council/business combination; IIRC the previous & current government were/are all about local authorities running some local amenities to supplement their tax/grant income so the issue is also about what is being encouraged nationally too (in these Big Society times).
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
I think the OP makes a lot of good points. I really can't understand some of the opposing negative viewpoints. It's as though you want to find any reason, anything at all in order to disagree and continually present the football club as the major wrong doer here? Our football club is owned by Otium so get over it! I want to move forward not continually backwards. We need to find a solution that does that in the here and now. It's what it is people, deal with it. The faults and blame are on both sides, no doubt about it as the facts prove it so lets concentrate on that and hope there will be a deal for our football club. Owners will come and go but if the stance is "liquidate the club, get rid of SISU at all cost" approach of some on these boards, then the club will go and sadly never return. It will be gone.
blueflint
Well-Known Member
and just how would you know any of that it would require a modicum of intelligence you have none still following SISU
hill83
Well-Known Member
blueflint
Well-Known Member
no because its written like a wind up just out to upset people if he really feels that way he has my deepest sympathy
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Pax- we all want the football club back in Coventry- no doubt about it.
- Can we accept the football club back in Coventry with the current owners? I can- just about.
- Can the Otium regime be supported in their ludicrous business plan in taking the club to Northampton?- for me and clearly most-(supported by attendance figure reduction)- No- a bridge too far.
- Can I ever forgive them for their very clearly evidenced wrong doings and erosion of the football clubs status since their tenure?- Never.
- Can I rest easy in my bed safe in the knowledge of my football clubs future? Until they have gone- No
Move forward you say, do not have negative views you implore- you have an optimistic persona I grant you and am truly envious of it- convince me with reasoned argument as to why SISU(sorry Otium) are a good thing for CCFC- I am listening(reading) but come from a shadier more realistic side of the street or so it would appear.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hobo
Well-Known Member
And the problem with Football Fans is they don't care where the profitability comes from or the success comes from.
That is why we are in this mess, plus there is a very hard nosed investor in the mix.
Uniting club and Stadium Godiva won't necessarily solve the problem, like some people on here think.
It is becoming more and more clear that the FL rules are not fit for purpose. Perhaps the Government needs to make it clear that FL rules overrides Company Law and the FL need tight and I mean tight rules.
Nick
Administrator
How is it written like a wind up?
hill83
Well-Known Member
100% agreed. OMG WUM if you don't agree. It's pathetic.
'Written like it's a WUM' on another planet suggesting that. As it's clearly not.
You do tend to go off on wild tangents though to be fair.
Samo
Well-Known Member
100% agree that Grendel is on another planet
hill83
Well-Known Member
By the way Ashdown, I've found the thread on GMK where you were accused of racism, reported, and your comment was deleted. You even admit that what you said could cause offence.
Assuming you are the same bloke, care to take back calling me a liar? Because I take offence to that too.