another damning article by 200% - worth a read (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Snozz_is_god
- Start date
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Well I think I'll re-tweet that or whatever you call it. There's so many putting it out there, I'll be dead by the time SISU get round to me.
cochese
Well-Known Member
the only reason we’re where we are is because we still allow hedge funds, looters, carpetbaggers and assorted cranks into our national game because not to do so would be somehow discriminatory – and one presumes ‘against my human rights, innit?’, and the reason nothing changes is because the whole business of reform is being slowly inserted into its place on the dusty shelf alongside four other reviews in the last forty-odd years.
Nearly 40% of fans would disagree that SISU are the ONLY reason we are where we are. You know... The survey and all that.
Nearly 40% of fans would disagree that SISU are the ONLY reason we are where we are. You know... The survey and all that.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
The article is pretty much the truth, and the majority, nearly 60% in fact, of city fans know it.
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
Really good article...
cochese
Well-Known Member
If it included the roles that ACL and previous owners of our club had played in the reasoning behind why a hedge fund ended up running our club, then it would be even closer to the truth.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
No that would just be over complicating the story unnecessarily.
What in that article wasn't true?
cochese
Well-Known Member
I haven't said anything in the article isn't true. But thanks for suggesting I did.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
It's probably best not to mention ACL or the previous boards. Just blame it all on the current regime. Makes things much simpler.
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
The article is about the suitability of hedge funds running football clubs... 6 years of chaotic business decline, I think we know the answer to that..
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
Mate. I think he simply asked you a question..
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
And again someone goes back into the archives to drag up the past. How do you move forward if you keep looking back. The article is a very good read and if more of these keep appearing then it should make certain people/companies start to feel slightly uncomfortable at the very least. The things people are writing is about the here and now, the facts and who has let us down badly (Football League and FA) and who should be looked into. Yes, they mention the past but they do not stay there because to continually do that will get us nowhere fast and certainly not back to Coventry. This is why buffoons like Fisher, Labovitch and Reid can only talk about what has happened and not at the bigger picture. Unfortunately I think all of this is a bigger problem than just Coventry City and some of the recent articles we have read have alluded to this.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Never suggested anything, sorry If it come across that I did.
I just asking if there was anything in the article that wasn't true.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Well Grendel claims that 512 (40%) is a majority of city fans so 915 must be off the scale.
It happens continually on here (I suppose they take the lead from Fisher), but it is completely immaterial to the present and the future. Whatever any investigation or inquiry dug up, even if it put someone in front of a court, it would not sort out the current predicament. Only one party can do that and this endless rehashing of the past only serves to deflect the spotlight from that party.
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
Agreed 100%, the buck stops with the owner, the party responsible for the well being of the CCFC business.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
We're fucked then
If you mean 'bring the club back to the Ricoh', then it will take two parts agreeing a price.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
With one party banding round figures of 6 million whilst considering building new of lesser quality, with less potential in a poorer location at a debt of 40 million.
Agreeing a price seems a tad unrealistic to me
cochese
Well-Known Member
And that's the problem I have with these articles. We will highlight everything is wrong right now, but we won't say anything about how we got here or how we're going to get out of this hole. The owners aren't going to sign another rental agreement, and as owners of a club with no assets other than the players are within their rights to do so. ACL are unlikely to accept any offer that SISU are willing to make for any part of the stadium because they don't want to lose out on a money making business for the wrong price. So far neither side is willing to give in. If either side gave in, not just SISU, we'd be back at the Ricoh. But because SISU are the owners of the club, and because they are seen as the ones who are saying no deal to a rental agreement, they are the ones that have been given the blame.
The article is just written to make people who dislike SISU feel a bit better.
cofastreecity
New Member
Articulate well reasoned article, with content which should make others shudder, and so they should, as its criminal, thankfully the deep dive has began
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
The article is just written to make people who dislike SISU feel a bit better.[/QUOTE]
Oh right, the article is just written to make the people who dislike Sisu feel better, why did it talk about the wrong doings or should I say no doings of the toothless Football League and the bigger picture of companies like these being bad for football. But no, you're right, I do feel better now after reading that article.
Oh right, the article is just written to make the people who dislike Sisu feel better, why did it talk about the wrong doings or should I say no doings of the toothless Football League and the bigger picture of companies like these being bad for football. But no, you're right, I do feel better now after reading that article.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I presume you simply didn't read (or understand) the article then, it concentrates most of its fire on the weak & unsuitable stewardship of the FA and the FL and politicians who are too cowardly to act.
Anyway, I think it scored a few direct hits..
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Here you have hit the nail on the head with what many of us think.
Sisu are the guardians of your football club. As CEO everything is down to Tim Fisher. You or he might not like that, but that is his responsibility. Under his reign we have seen attendances fall by over 13k, relegation, liquidation, and the club is homeless. And before you start going on about what ACL did, a decent CEO should be able to put forward a proposal for Coventry City to play at the citys main stadium.
ACL are just a supplier. Nothing else. They have no obligation (either moral or legal) to even let the club near the Ricoh again. They have as much responsibility in the running of CCFC as the bloke that drives the team bus.
Even if you think ACL have caused a lot of damage, what sort of company allows its fate to be decided by a supplier?
cochese
Well-Known Member
Oh right, the article is just written to make the people who dislike Sisu feel better, why did it talk about the wrong doings or should I say no doings of the toothless Football League and the bigger picture of companies like these being bad for football. But no, you're right, I do feel better now after reading that article.[/QUOTE]
Nothing new that hasn't been said already about the football league or SISU is in the article. It's just reworded some, but not all, of the information that's been out there for the past 6 months. SISU aren't going to decide to change their minds because someone wrote a blog entry about them. The football league aren't going to change their ways because they still have a full allocation of clubs in the league. And people will continue to not look at the side ACL has played because the articles are too busy looking at the "popular view" that SISU are the worst ones in all of this.
cochese
Well-Known Member
So SISU are bad owners. Do you think ACL are suitable landlords for a football club?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Well they aren't anymore, so no problem. Wait till SISU build HR2 then see what you think of the landlords there.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Of course they are being given the blame. They could be back at the Ricoh accept the lower rent whatever it is and negotiate part sale then full sale. Do this in good faith then perhaps the pendulum would swing in their favour. At the moment they look like bullies and spoilt kids who take their ball away because they cant get what they want. What are people supposed to think they are willing to lose money hand over fist and "build" a new ground for far more than offering a decent price for the Ricoh. These are supposeed to be clever business people its about time they started to act like it.
cochese
Well-Known Member
And if the council won't sell at any price because they feel that it isn't a loss for them if the club doesn't return to the Ricoh?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Always got the game on, provided the club with good facilities, rose to the occasion when it come to big events.
Either way, ACL are just a supplier. They have no obligation to be what you may consider is a good landlord. They are there to make money for the City of Coventry, that is their primary function.
The CEO of a football club has a responsibility to negotiate a decent deal for the club and to play at a venue acceptable to the fans.