Les reid's ct article (32 Viewers)

Forums New posts
GaryPendrysEyes

GaryPendrysEyes

Well-Known Member
torchomatic said:
So what did you make of all the confidential documents from both sides when you had chance to study and digest them? Do tell.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Do you think most fans support Sisu?-- I thought you/we/even GMK all agreed everyone wanted Sisu gone. Now Les Reid wants to sell them the Ricoh, and apparently you now agree with him.
[not that Im surprised].
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
GaryPendrysEyes said:
English comprehension not your strong point? 'Out of touch' with the views of Cov fans and the people of Coventry. You know like the ones who marched, signed petitons and arent going to Sixfields.
Click to expand...

So do those who "marched, signed petitions and don't go to Sixfields" not want Coventry to return to Coventry?

I am among fans who sense the tide is turning in fans' opinion - hence campaigners' preference for the more emollient "Keep Cov in Cov" slogan...... People want City back in Coventry - however that is achieved. The majority want that, irrespective of who the owners are. Two-thirds would attend Ricoh matches under Sisu,the report shows.
Click to expand...
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
GaryPendrysEyes said:
English comprehension not your strong point? 'Out of touch' with the views of Cov fans and the people of Coventry. You know like the ones who marched, signed petitons and arent going to Sixfields.
Click to expand...

There are people who move on and don't get stuck in what was 'then'.
Les Reid may be out of touch with you and a lot more, but eventually many - if not most - will come to the conclusion that sisu are not going away, and the only way to get what we want - ccfc back at the Ricoh - is for CCc and Higgs to sell their shares. Sooner rather than later.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
They do. I don't think there's anyone who wants SISU to stay. However, because his article suggests that ACL are also to "blame" then you label him "out of touch". Personally, I think those who blindly believe only one side are to blame for our woes are out of touch. You for a start.

EDIT: I want the football club to own the Ricoh, if that's SISU then that's SISU. ACL can put provisos in to protect themselves. Oddly, people are more than happy for PH4 someone we know absolutely nothing about to have a slice of the "community asset"

GaryPendrysEyes said:
What on earth are you talking about? Do you think most fans support Sisu?-- I thought you/we/even GMK all agreed everyone wanted Sisu gone. Now Les Reid wants to sell them the Ricoh, and apparently you now agree with him.
[not that Im surprised].
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GaryPendrysEyes

GaryPendrysEyes

Well-Known Member
torchomatic said:
They do. I don't think there's anyone who wants SISU to stay. However, because his article suggests that ACL are also to "blame" then you label him "out of touch". Personally, I think those who blindly believe only one side are to blame for our woes are out of touch. You for a start.
Click to expand...

The point is (listen) Les Reid wants Sisu to stay. That's why he is out of touch. Get it?? of course not oooof.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
No, he doesn't "want" them to stay. No one "wants" them. He is saying if we want to play back at the Ricoh rather than Sixfields then that may be the only solution.

GaryPendrysEyes said:
The point is (listen) Les Reid wants Sisu to stay. That's why he is out of touch. Get it?? of course not oooof.
Click to expand...
 
ohitsaidwalker king power

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
torchomatic said:
They do. I don't think there's anyone who wants SISU to stay. However, because his article suggests that ACL are also to "blame" then you label him "out of touch". Personally, I think those who blindly believe only one side are to blame for our woes are out of touch. You for a start.

EDIT: I want the football club to own the Ricoh, if that's SISU then that's SISU. ACL can put provisos in to protect themselves. Oddly, people are more than happy for PH4 someone we know absolutely nothing about to have a slice of the "community asset"
Click to expand...

So the devil you know.. (for they are no doubt devils).. rather than the one you dont? Sadly I cant agree Torch... PH4 is an unknown sure. SISU are knowns. Rumsfeld all over again?

I cannot support the notion that SISU/OTIUM laying claim to the stadium is a good thing for CCFC in the long run.. SISU took my football club away.. until that point I was reasonably moderate, had empathy for their shared revenue claim and a reduce rent, I might even have reluctantly supported some kind of a shared ownership of the stadium on fair and equal terms basis for the good of CCFC... but THEY threw their teddy out of the pram when the JR didnt go their way after not paying rent in a clear and calculated mandate to distress ACL that failed due to council bailout... SISU/OTIUM ripped CCFC from its history and its city, they cannot be forgiven in my mind... I want CCFC back more than almost anything but cannot support that notion being at the expense of all other. High stakes indeed.. if it fails CCFC as we know it will be no more... but the city will still have a stadium from which no doubt investment can be drawn... together we will rise again- sentimental clap trap- maybe?
NOT what I want.. but rewarding a bully cannot be the right and proper decision.
Just my opinion- like us all.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Well, there you go then. He's got it in for you as well as all the others.

GaryPendrysEyes said:
You dont know what he wants, he has certainly never called for Sisu to go.
Click to expand...
 
davebart

davebart

Active Member
SkyBlueScottie said:
What would they do with it?
Click to expand...

whatever they want. The site is capable of being used for virtually anything you or they could imagine. They don't have to do it themselves they can sell it off to developers.

My point is - it does not have nil value unless used as a football stadium, even if SISU and Les Reid would like everyone to think so.
 
WiganSkyBlue

WiganSkyBlue

Member
If this guy was any sort of journalist, in the proper sense of the word (ie not a columnist), then he would have doorstepped Seppala with probing questions and reported on her reactions/answers together with pictures. He would also have done the rounds of adjoining LA's to see if any planning proposals were in the offing for a new stadium. Just my opinion!

Incidentally, right at the start of all this mess I did suggest that if Fisher marched the club out of the Ricoh then what would stop CCC considering levelling the site and building houses. After all the LA have a duty to all of its council tax payers and not just some of them who happen to attend matches, and many fans (myself included) do not pay council tax to CCC. Please don't misunderstand me, I would prefer for CCFC to return to the Ricoh, but if trust is so broken down between the 2 parties that a deal cannot be struck what I have suggested may become a reality; after all that has happened I cannot see the 2 sides coming together.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Shock! Horror! What!? Sell of the "community asset" to developers. I'm sure there would be a brain meltdown on here if that happened!

davebart said:
whatever they want. The site is capable of being used for virtually anything you or they could imagine. They don't have to do it themselves they can sell it off to developers.

My point is - it does not have nil value unless used as a football stadium, even if SISU and Les Reid would like everyone to think so.
Click to expand...
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
WiganSkyBlue said:
If this guy was any sort of journalist, in the proper sense of the word (ie not a columnist), then he would have doorstepped Seppala with probing questions and reported on her reactions/answers together with pictures. He would also have done the rounds of adjoining LA's to see if any planning proposals were in the offing for a new stadium. Just my opinion!

Incidentally, right at the start of all this mess I did suggest that if Fisher marched the club out of the Ricoh then what would stop CCC considering levelling the site and building houses. After all the LA have a duty to all of its council tax payers and not just some of them who happen to attend matches, and many fans (myself included) do not pay council tax to CCC. Please don't misunderstand me, I would prefer for CCFC to return to the Ricoh, but if trust is so broken down between the 2 parties that a deal cannot be struck what I have suggested may become a reality; after all that has happened I cannot see the 2 sides coming together.
Click to expand...

Are you a 'proper journalist'?

I did suggest that if Fisher marched the club out of the Ricoh then what would stop CCC considering levelling the site and building houses. After all the LA have a duty to all of its council tax payers and not just some of them who happen to attend matches, and many fans (myself included) do not pay council tax to CCC.
Click to expand...

It would most likely make the council liable to repay all the European money it received + the Central Government grant through AWM. Not a great move for the taxpayer. That's without considering the demolition costs.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
An excellent article which asks questions of all sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors :)
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Ah got me there. I was dreading Mr Razor Sharp Intellect noticed what I'd done.

blueflint said:
hey its torch your talking to what did you expect
Click to expand...
 
M

MichaelCCFC

New Member
ohitsaidwalker king power said:
So the devil you know.. (for they are no doubt devils).. rather than the one you dont? Sadly I cant agree Torch... PH4 is an unknown sure. SISU are knowns. Rumsfeld all over again?

I cannot support the notion that SISU/OTIUM laying claim to the stadium is a good thing for CCFC in the long run.. SISU took my football club away.. until that point I was reasonably moderate, had empathy for their shared revenue claim and a reduce rent, I might even have reluctantly supported some kind of a shared ownership of the stadium on fair and equal terms basis for the good of CCFC... but THEY threw their teddy out of the pram when the JR didnt go their way after not paying rent in a clear and calculated mandate to distress ACL that failed due to council bailout... SISU/OTIUM ripped CCFC from its history and its city, they cannot be forgiven in my mind... I want CCFC back more than almost anything but cannot support that notion being at the expense of all other. High stakes indeed.. if it fails CCFC as we know it will be no more... but the city will still have a stadium from which no doubt investment can be drawn... together we will rise again- sentimental clap trap- maybe?
NOT what I want.. but rewarding a bully cannot be the right and proper decision.
Just my opinion- like us all.
Click to expand...

ohitsaidwalker - can't help but feel you've summed things up pretty well. Having seen the total disregard sisu have for the views of fans, the promises about a new stadium which I don't think anyone believes is anything more than hot air, etc etc I just don't see how sisu can be trusted with ccfc any longer
 
T

tbh444

Member
MichaelCCFC said:
ohitsaidwalker - can't help but feel you've summed things up pretty well. Having seen the total disregard sisu have for the views of fans, the promises about a new stadium which I don't think anyone believes is anything more than hot air, etc etc I just don't see how sisu can be trusted with ccfc any longer
Click to expand...

Well said. I am really concerned that there could be a gradual shift where the majority opinion gradually morphs from KCIC to 'sell SISU the stadium on the cheap' (because they're one and the same, right?). That seems pretty much what Les Reid has clearly been pushing for all along. There may be no easy alternative solution, but I hope that enough fans continue to oppose SISU to at least make it less likely.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
tbh444 said:
Well said. I am really concerned that there could be a gradual shift where the majority opinion gradually morphs from KCIC to 'sell SISU the stadium on the cheap' (because they're one and the same, right?). That seems pretty much what Les Reid has clearly been pushing for all along. There may be no easy alternative solution, but I hope that enough fans continue to oppose SISU to at least make it less likely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the article is quite good till near the end, when Les Reids true agenda is aired.. personally I think the emphasis should be on SISU to talk to stop the damage they're causing to our club, but clearly that is of relatively little concern to them.

This paragraph is highly misleading for a start..
I also doubt council leader Ann Lucas's insistence ACL is "hugely profitable" without a football club - despite the evidence from last year's accounts, which showed a £1million profit when they were receiving the full £1.3million football club rent.
Click to expand...
He contends that ACL's figures don't add up, yet he fails to mention the effect of a considerable reduction of outgoings required to service the outstanding loan, and the fact that the money made during Olympic year not registered in ACLs accounts yet made the following year pretty healthy.

On the other hand he also fails to quantify the losses sustained by CCFC Ltd, it is mentioned in passing, but Port Vale chairman Norman Smurthwaite does in another article, http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/port-vale-owner-says-damage-6064087
"Coventry must be losing the best part of £60,000 a week in revenue if you look at how they’ve structured things, the gates they’re getting and the match revenue opportunities that they had before.”
Click to expand...
60K a week, that's a cool £3M a year!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Jack Griffin said:
Yeah, the article is quite good till near the end, when Les Reids true agenda is aired.. personally I think the emphasis should be on SISU to talk to stop the damage they're causing to our club, but clearly that is of relatively little concern to them.

This paragraph is highly misleading for a start..

He contends that ACL's figures don't add up, yet he fails to mention the effect of a considerable reduction of outgoings required to service the outstanding loan, and the fact that the money made during Olympic year not registered in ACLs accounts yet made the following year pretty healthy.

On the other hand he also fails to quantify the losses sustained by CCFC Ltd, it is mentioned in passing, but Port Vale chairman Norman Smurthwaite does in another article, http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/port-vale-owner-says-damage-6064087

60K a week, that's a cool £3M a year!
Click to expand...

The emphasis should be on both parties IMO.

Yes, the Olympic year will make the accounts look healthy, but was a once in a life time opportunity meaning the accounts won't show the true impact of not having ccfc at the Ricoh.

And losing £3m per year, we've been losing more than that for the majority of the time sisu have been here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors :)
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
stupot07 said:
And losing £3m per year, we've been losing more than that for the majority of the time sisu have been here.
Click to expand...

Ermmm.. Fisher said that club was near break even not so long ago.

It so happens that £3M would easily be cancelled out if they had 11,000 crowds, i.e an extra 9,000 x £15 x 25 matches is over £3M.
 
ohitsaidwalker king power

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
terryhallsboots said:
So when the poll was showing anti-sisu sentiment it was agreed with, when it can be used for a pro-sisu agenda the data is not robust. I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Not sure as I follow. Correction- 2500 people surveyed from the KCIC email circ list- would that not make it a slightly skewed survey? I wasnt advocating nor denying its conclusion just not sure it could be relied upon to be impartial

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/survey-majority-sky-blues-fans-6070444
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Jack Griffin said:
Ermmm.. Fisher said that club was near break even not so long ago.

It so happens that £3M would easily be cancelled out if they had 11,000 crowds, i.e an extra 9,000 x £15 x 25 matches is over £3M.
Click to expand...

I think everyone is agreement that it makes no financial sense.

I would say though, the average ticket price will be a lower than £15, you might not get a single home cup tie (they were max £10 per adult last season) plus you have to account for 20% vat on that.

Yeah, I think we were close to breakeven, but my point was more that they have funded losses in the past so are used to doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 33 (members: 0, guests: 33)
Top