The war is over, time for the peace treaty (3 Viewers)

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

I repeat, for the umpteenth time, their argument is never about the short term.

Continually saying 'there's no business case' while refusing to even engage with their business case, but instead offer up another one, is a bit pointless really.

Sorry maybe I'm thick... please explain what sensible business plan actually accepts uneccessary loss over 1,2 3 -5 years when it is totally avoidable?

Sorry if its the umpteenth time +1

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

That's the point.

The club is utterly unviable as is.

So it's to attempt to make it viable. The alternative, frankly, is there is no more club regardless, and it might come to that.

Now, you may disagree with the method (fine) you may disagree wityh the affect it has on fans( even more fine) but to deny that there is actually a business case for doing this is utter madness.

It may not be a likeable business case, it may indeed be a business case that's fraught with risk for the people doing it... but there *is* a business case.

And continually quoting the numbers that *could* be had at the Ricoh ignores that completely, as nobody ever claims it's better to move in the short term. So all that does is confirm what's already known, but doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

(awaits for the messenger to be shot once more)

 

[italiahorse]

That's the point.

The club is utterly unviable as is.

So it's to attempt to make it viable. The alternative, frankly, is there is no more club regardless, and it might come to that.

Now, you may disagree with the method (fine) you may disagree wityh the affect it has on fans( even more fine) but to deny that there is actually a business case for doing this is utter madness.

It may not be a likeable business case, it may indeed be a business case that's fraught with risk for the people doing it... but there *is* a business case.

And continually quoting the numbers that *could* be had at the Ricoh ignores that completely, as nobody ever claims it's better to move in the short term. So all that does is confirm what's already known, but doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

(awaits for the messenger to be shot once more)

If one other person would ever agree with you then perhaps I could start to understand.
Other than that more waffle from the same source.
PS Tim Fisher excluded.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

That's the point.

The club is utterly unviable as is.

So it's to attempt to make it viable. The alternative, frankly, is there is no more club regardless, and it might come to that.

Now, you may disagree with the method (fine) you may disagree wityh the affect it has on fans( even more fine) but to deny that there is actually a business case for doing this is utter madness.

It may not be a likeable business case, it may indeed be a business case that's fraught with risk for the people doing it... but there *is* a business case.

And continually quoting the numbers that *could* be had at the Ricoh ignores that completely, as nobody ever claims it's better to move in the short term. So all that does is confirm what's already known, but doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

(awaits for the messenger to be shot once more)

Apologies- you seem to argue with your own logic in agreeing that moving from the Ricoh in the short term is actually a bad idea....

*Edit please read post 99

 

[Deleted member 5849]

If one other person would ever agree with you then perhaps I could start to understand.
Other than that more waffle from the same source.
PS Tim Fisher excluded.

Forgive the arrogance.

But I do know what I'm talking about here.

So maybe it's not agreement, but lack of knowledge on how such entities operate eh.

Now... such knowledge allowed me to be very, VERY concerned when SISU took us over.

Such knowledge also allows me to understand why they're doing what they're doing.

Of course plenty of morons then are too stupid to understand the difference between relaying a message and being pro certain institutions...

You choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore why, more fool you.

As you never have a hope of engaging with something if you choose to ignore what doesn't fit yopur world view. Empathy does not equal sympathy.

 

[italiahorse]

Forgive the arrogance.

But I do know what I'm talking about here.

So maybe it's not agreement, but lack of knowledge on how such entities operate eh.

Now... such knowledge allowed me to be very, VERY concerned when SISU took us over.

Such knowledge also allows me to understand why they're doing what they're doing.

Of course plenty of morons then are too stupid to understand the difference between relaying a message and being pro certain institutions...

You choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore why, more fool you.

As you never have a hope of engaging with something if you choose to ignore what doesn't fit yopur world view. Empathy does not equal sympathy.

Sorry ...... and the other person ?

 

[shmmeee]

That's the point.

The club is utterly unviable as is.

So it's to attempt to make it viable. The alternative, frankly, is there is no more club regardless, and it might come to that.

Now, you may disagree with the method (fine) you may disagree wityh the affect it has on fans( even more fine) but to deny that there is actually a business case for doing this is utter madness.

It may not be a likeable business case, it may indeed be a business case that's fraught with risk for the people doing it... but there *is* a business case.

And continually quoting the numbers that *could* be had at the Ricoh ignores that completely, as nobody ever claims it's better to move in the short term. So all that does is confirm what's already known, but doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

(awaits for the messenger to be shot once more)

I don't think he's attacking the business case for owning a stadium, as much as moving the club in the interim. If you don't care about ACL, why not stay at the Ricoh? They'll be desperate, you can drive a great rent (say £150k) and come off as the "good guys", they might even move further as they see you're serious about building a stadium of your own.

Why burn those bridges, lose customer goodwill and large amounts of income, if you're trying to do what Sisu claim?

To be honest, they'd have been better coming clean on relegation about the state is the club, instead of talking "bounce back budgets" they should have been talking sustainability. That way the fans might be on board to a new stadium when proposed.

This complete lack of business sense about how to engage fans is exactly why I want them gone ASAP. Even if they can get the income streams sorted, there'll be no customers to monetize. Its all been so needless.

 

[Astute]

Forgive the arrogance.

But I do know what I'm talking about here.

So maybe it's not agreement, but lack of knowledge on how such entities operate eh.

Now... such knowledge allowed me to be very, VERY concerned when SISU took us over.

Such knowledge also allows me to understand why they're doing what they're doing.

Of course plenty of morons then are too stupid to understand the difference between relaying a message and being pro certain institutions...

You choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore why, more fool you.

As you never have a hope of engaging with something if you choose to ignore what doesn't fit yopur world view. Empathy does not equal sympathy.

Oh yes SISU have done good for us. Thanks for reminding me to get my head out of the sand and giving me a chance of thanking them for what they have done for our club and thank them for what plans they have for us in the future :thinking about:

 

[Nick]

Oh yes SISU have done good for us. Thanks for reminding me to get my head out of the sand and giving me a chance of thanking them for what they have done for our club and thank them for what plans they have for us in the future :thinking about:

To be fair he didn't sisu have done anything good and did say he was very concerned when they took over.

I think most agree the negatives far outweigh the positives.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Forgive the arrogance.

But I do know what I'm talking about here.

So maybe it's not agreement, but lack of knowledge on how such entities operate eh.

Now... such knowledge allowed me to be very, VERY concerned when SISU took us over.

Such knowledge also allows me to understand why they're doing what they're doing.

Of course plenty of morons then are too stupid to understand the difference between relaying a message and being pro certain institutions...

You choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore why, more fool you.

As you never have a hope of engaging with something if you choose to ignore what doesn't fit yopur world view. Empathy does not equal sympathy.

Too technical for me to understand- sorry.... and like in my original post I accept I am not an accountant- but simplictically- whilst accepting your point about the long term sustainability of the club i.e must see revenue from other income streams- tell me in simple plain laymans English how short term loss, when avoidable is the correct business decision- let alone a decision which embodies the club to the fan base and the city which bears its name(for now).

 

[italiahorse]

I repeat, for the umpteenth time, their argument is never about the short term.

Continually saying 'there's no business case' while refusing to even engage with their business case, but instead offer up another one, is a bit pointless really.

What size new stadium are your calculations based on?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

To be honest, they'd have been better coming clean on relegation about the state is the club, instead of talking "bounce back budgets" they should have been talking sustainability. That way the fans might be on board to a new stadium when proposed.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Their whole problem has always been they've been disengenuous from the start, Ranson's 'we are debt free' mantra being an especially fine one.

And as we all suspect full well, they're probably being disengenuous with the whole idea of a new stadium. I suspect however that if they do get income streams sorted, that will be their prelude to buggering off.

And if they bugger off, the goodwill of club back in Coventry, plus new owners probably is worth plenty more in the long term than a simple transition from one inept owner to another. From their point of view, it's a case of reminding people what they might lose and, if you think about the constant scare stories that never happened, Cocventry City has probably become just a little cynical and/or jaundiced about the threatto its club, on all levels. From building the stadiumn to saving the academy to administration... the club was still here, but the circles go down and down and down and ever smaller.

It may not seem it now, but long term, if we're lucky, this could actually be to our advantage as it reminds us of what we've lost, and could lose again in the future if we don't treat it better.

If we're unlucky of course, the stakes are high... as we all know.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Oh yes SISU have done good for us. Thanks for reminding me to get my head out of the sand and giving me a chance of thanking them for what they have done for our club and thank them for what plans they have for us in the future :thinking about:

When did I ever say they were good for us?!?

I said (and showed!) how they were very VERY bad for us before they even took over!

of course people stuck their heads in the sand and refused to listen, i didn't know what I was talking about apparently...

 

[Astute]

When did I ever say they were good for us?!?

I said (and showed!) how they were very VERY bad for us before they even took over!

of course people stuck their heads in the sand and refused to listen, i didn't know what I was talking about apparently...

So why do you try to find fault elsewhere if you knew that they were going to be so bad Norman?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Too technical for me to understand- sorry.... and like in my original post I accept I am not an accountant- but simplictically- whilst accepting your point about the long term sustainability of the club i.e must see revenue from other income streams- tell me in simple plain laymans English how short term loss, when avoidable is the correct business decision- let alone a decision which embodies the club to the fan base and the city which bears its name(for now).

Short term loss is not avoidable if you want the long term gain.

That's kind of the point, there was no option for anything other than death... or a temporary reprieve.

Where they are indeed (as shmmeee hints at) downright stupid is to dress everything up in smoke and mirrors, as it alienates their consumer base with statements that it's rather difficult to get your head around, and trust, when no evidence exists to say they are doing what they say they'll be doing.

Why, after all, would that get people onside?

But PR has always been their failing, hasn't it? The moment they came in they were secretive, keep things under wraps... had a desire to control everything by removing the right of any old fan shareholder to attend AGMs and at least ask questions if they wished. They never have reconciled the financial arts with the intangible arts and that's constantly seen them struggling to gain any goodwill.

Add in the fact that I struggle with the idea of football being about making people profit (be it a hedge fund, a property developer... you name it) then it's difficult to have sympathy for them. Investments after all, can go down as well as up. The day we stop talking about football as investment is the day that it returns to the people that matter.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

So why do you try to find fault elsewhere if you knew that they were going to be so bad Norman?

SISU can be bad.

That doesn't give them an exclusive on cocking up and being inept!

You want to engage an enemy, it's wise to have empathy however.

Otherwise you may as well shout at my cat.

The whole reason SISU got here in the first place is it became an anybody but Robinson bandwagon. If we'd stopped, paused, and thought about what was best for *us* then we might have opened the door just a little bit to there being other choices.

Other better choices.

 

[italiahorse]

SISU can be bad.

That doesn't give them an exclusive on cocking up and being inept!

You want to engage an enemy, it's wise to have empathy however.

Otherwise you may as well shout at my cat.

......... and the size of the new stadium in your business plan is ?
Just show I can prove you wrong.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

......... and the size of the new stadium in your business plan is ?
Just show I can prove you wrong.

Are you deliberately misreading?

 

[covmark]

If one other person would ever agree with you then perhaps I could start to understand.
Other than that more waffle from the same source.
PS Tim Fisher excluded.

I agree (and I'm not tim fisher before anyone makes the hilarious quip)

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Short term loss is not avoidable if you want the long term gain.

That's kind of the point, there was no option for anything other than death... or a temporary reprieve.

Where they are indeed (as schmeee hints at) downright stupid is to dress everything up in smoke and mirrors, as it alienates their consumer base with statements that it's rather difficult to get your head around, and trust, when no evidence exists to say they are doing what they say they'll be doing.

Why, after all, would that get people onside?

But PR has always been their failing, hasn't it? The moment they came in they were secretive, keep things under wraps... had a desire to control everything by removing the right of any old fan shareholder to attend AGMs and at least ask questions if they wished. They never have reconciled the financial arts with the intangible arts and that's constantly seen them struggling to gain any goodwill.

Add in the fact that I struggle with the idea of football being about making people profit (be it a hedge fund, a property developer... you name it) then it's difficult to have sympathy for them. Investments after all, can go down as well as up. The day we stop talking about football as investment is the day that it returns to the people that matter.

Short term Death.....? So SISU(Otium) were kicked out of the Ricoh then is what you are saying?
Of course there was an option, to swallow their pride, continue to play at the Ricoh whilst their plans for a new stadium with access to all revenue streams matured- if indeed that was/is their true plan.. but I fear their agenda is deeper than you are prepared to accept.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Short term Death.....? So SISU(Otium) were kicked out of the Ricoh then is what you are saying?
Of course there was an option, to swallow their pride... but I fear their agenda is deeper than you are prepared to accept.

If you think the club is in any way viable as is, then I fear you may be in for a shock.

It wasn't viable when Robinson left, hence the ability for sharks to circle seeing the chance to spunk a bit of quick cash at it in the hope of vast rewards and returns... who cares about the foundations, the infrastructure, as long as we sign a player or two?

Ever since the perfect storm of Arena 2000, Premiership explosion, relegation and ITV Digital implosion, we've been firefighting.

It's amazing we've reached this far, really.

And all the time in the short termist need to survive at all costs, the club gets neglected in the quest for a player, a promotion, a cure to all ills.

So the club survives, but the coma its in doesn't show any sign of lifting.

And so the sharks continue to swim and gather, sharks dressed in suits with promises of cash and promotion.

 

[Grendel]

If one other person would ever agree with you then perhaps I could start to understand.
Other than that more waffle from the same source.
PS Tim Fisher excluded.

One thing he is saying is that you can as an organisation budget for losses if you for see the asset value will be higher and the end of the period.

I could quote you one company that losts millions for most of 2 decades but now thrives.

 

[Grendel]

Short term Death.....? So SISU(Otium) were kicked out of the Ricoh then is what you are saying?
Of course there was an option, to swallow their pride, continue to play at the Ricoh whilst their plans for a new stadium with access to all revenue streams matured- if indeed that was/is their true plan.. but I fear their agenda is deeper than you are prepared to accept.

That offer is not available.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

One thing he is saying is that you can as an organisation budget for losses if you for see the asset value will be higher and the end of the period.

I could quote you one company that losts lions for most of 2 decades but now thrives.

But in this case losses are avoidable- do you not agree?

 

[thaiskyblue]

One thing he is saying is that you can as an organisation budget for losses if you for see the asset value will be higher and the end of the period.

I could quote you one company that losts millions for most of 2 decades but now thrives.

west midland safari park.

 

[Grendel]

But in this case losses are avoidable- do you not agree?

The losses may be less but like to still be in debt. Are there any other council owned grounds that offer a worse deal to its main tenant? Despite a lot of bluster from a lot of posters I haven't been shown any.

 

[Grendel]

west midland safari park.

Well its a big cat

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The losses may be less but like to still be in debt. Are there any other council owned grounds that offer a worse deal to its main tenant? Despite a lot of bluster from a lot of posters I haven't been shown any.

It's not even about who owns the ground, what the ground is, what deals are on offer.

Frankly, that's pretty incidental to the club being an utter basket case.

This is where the quest for profit gets us all.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Well its a big cat

A certain Geoffrey Robinson also involved at one time?

 

[Ashdown1]

If you think the club is in any way viable as is, then I fear you may be in for a shock.

It wasn't viable when Robinson left, hence the ability for sharks to circle seeing the chance to spunk a bit of quick cash at it in the hope of vast rewards and returns... who cares about the foundations, the infrastructure, as long as we sign a player or two?

Ever since the perfect storm of Arena 2000, Premiership explosion, relegation and ITV Digital implosion, we've been firefighting.

It's amazing we've reached this far, really.

And all the time in the short termist need to survive at all costs, the club gets neglected in the quest for a player, a promotion, a cure to all ills.

So the club survives, but the coma its in doesn't show any sign of lifting.

And so the sharks continue to swim and gather, sharks dressed in suits with promises of cash and promotion.

This season with reduced rent and costs, some F & B contribution and a drastically reduced wage bill, no ridiculous admin fees and management charges etc and perhaps with some luck in Cup draws per last year we could have at least broke even for 2013/14 for the first time in decades.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

If you think the club is in any way viable as is, then I fear you may be in for a shock.

It wasn't viable when Robinson left, hence the ability for sharks to circle seeing the chance to spunk a bit of quick cash at it in the hope of vast rewards and returns... who cares about the foundations, the infrastructure, as long as we sign a player or two?

Ever since the perfect storm of Arena 2000, Premiership explosion, relegation and ITV Digital implosion, we've been firefighting.

It's amazing we've reached this far, really.

And all the time in the short termist need to survive at all costs, the club gets neglected in the quest for a player, a promotion, a cure to all ills.

So the club survives, but the coma its in doesn't show any sign of lifting.

And so the sharks continue to swim and gather, sharks dressed in suits with promises of cash and promotion.

Please dont put words into my mouth at no point have I even suggested that I do not recognise the current business structure around CCFC is unsustainable
I acknowledge that the club is not viable against the current cost base- the evidence is clear and has been for time, before SISU. But they did know this when agreeing to take us over did they not?

But back to my point please... the short term loss IS avoidable, which is fundemantally the point I seek clarification on.
What business sense is there in playing at Northampton- you are clearly far more financially astute than I in a business sense so I bow to your wisdom- convince me please that losing money over 3-5 years is a GOOD thing when it CAN be avoided. Unless there is an alternate motive?

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

The losses may be less but like to still be in debt. Are there any other council owned grounds that offer a worse deal to its main tenant? Despite a lot of bluster from a lot of posters I haven't been shown any.

as ever you ignore the question with some vague response, and a redirection.

"The losses may be less... " well thats a start I guess..... so go on tell me how mitigating losses short term is a bad thing? Or do your pockets have holes that you occassionaly repair before promising to buy yourself new trousers?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But they did know this when agreeing to take us over did they not?

They did. Who's denying that? I even in this very thread criticised them for spending money on a player or two hoping for a promotion and big returns, as opposed to building the infrastructure of the club.

Doesn't this say that I agree wholeheartedly with this? Doesn't it, in fact, suggest that I'm particularly critical of a business model that hopes for short term hit and run rewards, rather than looks at themselves as custodians of the club?

Doesn't it in fact read as... anti SISU?

But back to my point please... the short term loss IS avoidable, which is fundemantally the point I seek clarification on.

The short term loss is not avoidable.

Notwithstanding the fact that offers were wilfully made with conditions that meant they were unable to be accepted, they were never made to the club either.

Therefore, the short term loss is unavoidable.

Couple that with the fact the club as is is probably IMHO utterly unsustainable even with a zero rent offer, and we have a serious problem. The club has *nothing* to its name apart from a training ground that McGinnity tried to sell, and was only stopped from doing so by refusal of planning permission for housing.

Even saying that, to some mentalists around here, will automatically paint that (and me by association!) as pro SISU. It doesn't stop the fact that SISU could indeed have made more of an effort to speak to people also, it doesn't in any way absolve them of their responsibility as custodians of the club. the thing is, though, being custodians of the club requires a different approach to looking out for the balance sheet above all else. Couple that with a brave new world where councils aren't allowed to support heritage and culture for the quality of life they give, but instead have to justify them on financial grounds, and we reach impasse.

Are ACL even wrong in their approach? I don't think so when it comes to rent figures and commercial deals; these are the times we live in, where council funding has to be justified. Look at some of the other things that are either closed down, or put in charitable trusts to keep going.

Does it mean owners as custodians rather than financial insitutions would undoubtedly be more appropriate for finding an answer that at least allows the catastrophe to be averted? I would say undoubtedly.

Does it mean the club, frankly, should not exist as is? I would say to that... undoubtedly.

So, choices moving forward? Either:

1) An acceptance wage bills need to be slashed radically, the club must be allowed to go into freefall for however long it takes to get to a stage where it can stabilise... the club must be allowed to go into freefall for however long it takes to get to a stage where benefactors would be willing to put their cash in with the expectation of no return, and cash lost;

2) Sell to other sharks who see the opposrtunity for a shit or bust, quick buck;

3) Hope and pray said benefactors as mentioned above actually have more cash than we ever dare to hope, and can take us over now;

4) Get the club saleable in some way, shape or form;

5) Let it fall until it dies;

6) Accept the status quo and see us continue to clin on in ever decreasing circles, getting slowly smaller and smaller until nobody cares when the plug is finally pulled.

Personally I'd say 2) and 6) are the ones to be avoided at all costs. I'd also say they're the ones most likely if it's a deal, ANY deal that's pushed upon the club. A deal that may avert a crisis short to medium term, but long term leaves us deep, deep in trouble.

One thing the current situation does wake people up to is whether the football club is important or not. Leave that any longer and leave the circles to continue to decrease... and it might just not be.

 

[deanocity3]

From what I heard on friday night,Robinson was in a no win situation when the 1.5m rent was agreed.He had one arm up forced up his back.if he didn't sign there would be no stadium for ccfc.several months after he signed it he went back to acl to see if it could be reduced and was told to do one

 

[Grendel]

as ever you ignore the question with some vague response, and a redirection.

"The losses may be less... " well thats a start I guess..... so go on tell me how mitigating losses short term is a bad thing? Or do your pockets have holes that you occassionaly repair before promising to buy yourself new trousers?

Mitigating losses on the short term by not investing in the future is a recipe for disaster - look at rover.