Grendel
Well-Known Member
The additional losses are minimal in comparison to the whole.
If they sell one player in January, either for a fee or a big wage earner, that will mitigate the shortfall.
Lowest Ever Coventry City Attendance? (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Tonylinc
- Start date
The additional losses are minimal in comparison to the whole.
If they sell one player in January, either for a fee or a big wage earner, that will mitigate the shortfall.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Great!!
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
There are no big wage earners left bar the ones on the board but can't see them going.
diggerdaley
New Member
If sisu are'nt concerned about gate money why charge at all,let everybody in for b*gger all,I think in the cup the gate is shared so they won't make much that night.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Well that's it. From a publicity point of view it would really get notice and keep the pot boiling if no fans turned up at all. And if the owners were receiving just about no revenue at all then I believe that would have a really big impact.
The club have budgeted for a loss. They will not have budgeted for no City fans at all turning up though. It always makes a very bold statement that the fans are totally united in their disagreement with the move. 100% unity.
The way things are at the moment the owners are clinging on to the hope that if the team starts doing really well the attendances will build again.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The problem is, the sign of absence can be interpreted as apathy...
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Well that would also be pretty accurate, and that is the long term problem we face.
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Whereas by some, attendance (on the Hill) can be intepreted as a glory seeking waste of time for ones own self interest
...?
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Which is why the away following at MK - which I know you were uncomfortable with for very valid reasons - was such an important statement.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Why it'd have been better targeted somewhere other than MK however, as you hint at!
Combine the two together, and the messages sent out are dangerously closeto encouraging a path of total destruction.
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Too late I fear...SISU have already negotiated that.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I'm with you on the theory, but there are few other options that offer the combination of capacity and geography - and I do believe that the message has been very positively received (IMO, no coincidence about the timing of national press interest).
Otis
Well-Known Member
Which is why I wouldn't advocate it as a global policy. I would be looking to target a few 'home' games for non-attendance.
On non-attendance days we should drive around Coventry in convoy at 10 mph bringing traffic around the city centre to a standstill.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Just as attendance can be interpreted as blind ignorance.
Just because it's football doesn't mean a fan can't vote with their feet! That is not apathy it's freedom of choice, the right to be to have value for money and receive a certain level of entertainment.
Football does receive a high level of brand loyalty. However the people running the sport and the clubs have taken this for granted over the years. Today's game is over priced, over exposed and the players over priced and over paid.
I asked a Man U fan I know why he wasn't going to Villa today. Good excuse to rib a United fan......£42.00 a ticket simple as that.
This person is a genuine football fan, who loves the sport and follows it avidly and an ex Man U season ticket holder. I wouldn't describe him as apathetic...just got different commitments in his life now.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
it would get their attention if nothing else, much like the guardian article.
there will be a response of some sort, what that response will be? who knows.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It is, but to just look at the messages sent out from a desired viewpoint, as opposed to messages received elsewhere, is a dangerous game.
Plurality of meaning, and all that.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Where else gives out a 7k allocation?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
...so it's all about the numbers?
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
In the context of the point most Sky Blues were trying to make.. YES.
You over analyse the intentions.. most travelled to give a very clear 2 fingered salute to SISU/OTIUM or whatever title they adorn themselves these days- there was no other. Talk of moral compass alignment to Winklemans abhorrent tactics are misguided.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I have, because apathy gets banded about a lot over various threads. My comments weren't specific to yours more a general statement.
Our current mess isn't specific to us it is a major problem football has as a whole. I have been following football since the 1960's and it has lost loads of paying customers.
It's now down to the fewer who are prepared to pay more.
Football traditionally was a release from the weekly grind of work...another reason for 'apathy' people don't want it churned into politics.
That is why there are so many divisions on how to protest...not apathy.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Does anyone else find it ironic that in the FA Cup this season, the majority of money sisu have made from it come from AFC Wimbledon fans?
Yet we're supposed to feel guilty about giving MK Dons money?
Yet we're supposed to feel guilty about giving MK Dons money?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Not really no. The FA cup was a randomly drawn tie, the MK dons game was purely fans choice to go in numbers despite moaning about covhampton franchise. afc Wimbledon is purely coincidental.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I can understand why people object to giving MK Dons money. However it comes down to personal choice. I know Wimbledon fans wouldn't boycott Sixfields on mass, much as I would love them too. I certainly wouldn't go on their fans forum calling them a hypercritical fan.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Not really no. The FA cup was a randomly drawn tie, the MK dons game was purely fans choice to go in numbers despite moaning about covhampton franchise. afc Wimbledon is purely coincidental.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So your saying the Wimbledon fans had no choice but to attend the FA Cup game?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
So then. Who owns the ground if and when we get taken over? Let's say PH4 buys the club tomorrow. Who owns the ground? The club or the property developer? A clue might be how he makes his living...
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
The property developer.
Whats your point?
Mine was RFC stated the club needs to own its ground to survive. I was pointing out that the club wont under sisu, (or PH4 as you've rightly pointed out), therefore the club is doomed is it not?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I didn't say it was apathy, I said how it can appear as apathy.
Active rather than passive protest helps to dispel that.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
My point is that so many people make A point out of the fact that CCFC won't own any new stadium (or the Ricoh for that matter if they got it) SISU or one of their companies would. Similar story with ANY new owner. Chances of the club actually owning anything disappeared with Highfield Road.
No, I don't think the club is doomed.
No, I don't think the club is doomed.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Either your stupid or being obtuse and I think its the latter.
A holding company under the same umberella will own the property and the club will be linked.
The arrangement is bery different than being under third party ownership and would be better than the club actually owning it anyway.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
So you disagree then that the club needs the freehold to survive?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
But in reality it makes no difference to the club if a related company or CCC own the freehold does it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Of course it does. Rent can be set at 1 pence a year if it wants of £1 million if it suits. Most business separate assets. The terms in terms of revenue would mean the club benefit from everything that is operated in the stadium and the club os far more attractive as a going concern. There would be no chance we would get separated again as we would be the main asset. If you can't see that, well....
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Revenue isn't currently available Freeholder.
CCFC never paid rent to the Freeholder.
How would a loss making football club, paying no rent into the arena, be classed as "the main asset"?