Significant Council announcement on Ricoh coming (16 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Nick

Nick

Administrator
shmmeee said:
See this is where IMO you show a real lack of understanding of what a lot of people who disagree with you think.

Many hate the owners because of their actions. Not the other way around. A thread on here the other day asked if we'd be happy in Sixfields with another owner who wanted to stay there. Well duh, no. Any owner who took the same actions as Sisu will get the same reaction.

I had no real issue with Sisu for a long time, check my post history. Even during the rent talks I used to argue with my dad that it's just negotiation tactics and that they're in it for the best of the club.

What changed the tide was the move out of Coventry. For me and many others that became the point where Sisus actions could no longer be legitimately claimed to be in the clubs long term interest.

All anyone has ever asked is for a reasonable case for the move to be put forward. It's never happened.

People don't hate what Sisu do because they're Sisu. They hate it because they don't see how it benefits a club they love.

And the complete silence when the question is asked here and elsewhere suggests they're not the only ones who can't see the benefits.
Click to expand...

No, I get what you mean and I meant because it is SISU and what they have done (Sorry, I should have expanded).

IF Sisu hadn't moved us away then would many people be as bothered in terms of the council? I do agree a reasonable case should be put forward or at least some reasoning for a lot of decisions. In the long term if the new build stadium was all simple and they moved us while they build a nice new stadium to take us back then it all seems rosey and can be understood but who knows what they are thinking or planning?
 
N

Noggin

New Member
it didn't seem to be about the ricoh, though it might of been, certainly wasn't an annoucement, a 1 min statement saying they are going to try and pay off some debts by selling some things, renegotiating leases etc, but nothing specific.
 
mark82

mark82

Super Moderator
shmmeee said:
See this is where IMO you show a real lack of understanding of what a lot of people who disagree with you think.

Many hate the owners because of their actions. Not the other way around. A thread on here the other day asked if we'd be happy in Sixfields with another owner who wanted to stay there. Well duh, no. Any owner who took the same actions as Sisu will get the same reaction.

I had no real issue with Sisu for a long time, check my post history. Even during the rent talks I used to argue with my dad that it's just negotiation tactics and that they're in it for the best of the club.

What changed the tide was the move out of Coventry. For me and many others that became the point where Sisus actions could no longer be legitimately claimed to be in the clubs long term interest.

All anyone has ever asked is for a reasonable case for the move to be put forward. It's never happened.

People don't hate what Sisu do because they're Sisu. They hate it because they don't see how it benefits a club they love.

And the complete silence when the question is asked here and elsewhere suggests they're not the only ones who can't see the benefits.
Click to expand...

To be fair there is a good argument that it is for the best long term interests of the club. It's certainly not in the best interests in the short term though.
 
P

PIPSQUEEK

New Member
mark82 said:
Council/ACL aren't exactly blame free in the whole situation, yet people seem to love them. We would likely still be at the Ricoh now if they hadn't tried to replace the owners. Would still be a major dispute ongoing but I bet we would still be there.
Click to expand...

Wish i was renting a house off you and if or when i lost my Job you would put my rent down and i personally believe ACL would of chucked them out at the end of this Season if they had carried on not paying the Rent which they agreed to .
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
mark82 said:
There aren't many on here who wouldn't want us back at the Ricoh, although I think some only want it if it benefits the council. That I find odd.
Click to expand...

I find it odder to preference the financial gain of an American hedge fund owner over the local representatives of your city personally, but I think both are a bit of a red herring.

People want CCFC to do well. If Sisu could show that their plans do that more would back them.

To be honest, the sentiment I see most that has nothing to do with CCFC is irrational hatred of the council. Most anti-CCC posters seem to have been anti-Labour or anti-Politician more than they're pro CCFC.

Just an observation.
 
mark82

mark82

Super Moderator
PIPSQUEEK said:
Wish i was renting a house off you and if or when i lost my Job you would put my rent down and i personally believe ACL would of chucked them out at the end of this Season if they had carried on not paying the Rent which they agreed to .
Click to expand...

I'd have been charging you 10 times the going rate in the first place.
 
mark82

mark82

Super Moderator
shmmeee said:
I find it odder to preference the financial gain of an American hedge fund owner over the local representatives of your city personally, but I think both are a bit of a red herring.

People want CCFC to do well. If Sisu could show that their plans do that more would back them.

To be honest, the sentiment I see most that has nothing to do with CCFC is irrational hatred of the council. Most anti-CCC posters seem to have been anti-Labour or anti-Politician more than they're pro CCFC.

Just an observation.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone gives a shit about sisu. Does anyone actually want them here? Wouldn't think many.
 
V

valiant15

New Member
M&B Stand said:
Didn't the ferret pull your argument to pieces and get you to admit you want the club, as exists under sisu, to die?
It's a Phoenix club with an owner you want isn't it? That and a cracking deal for ACL.
Click to expand...

Yes i would rather start again than spend the next ten years under sisu.

That's my opinion.

Am i not aloud to have one?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
No, I get what you mean and I meant because it is SISU and what they have done (Sorry, I should have expanded).

IF Sisu hadn't moved us away then would many people be as bothered in terms of the council? I do agree a reasonable case should be put forward or at least some reasoning for a lot of decisions. In the long term if the new build stadium was all simple and they moved us while they build a nice new stadium to take us back then it all seems rosey and can be understood but who knows what they are thinking or planning?
Click to expand...

No worries. I think we all forget that actually, apart from the odd trouble maker, we all want to know how our club will be secure going forward.

If we, as fans, could just keep focused on that then all parties (CCC/ACL/Sisu) would find it a lot harder.

I'd ask the same by the way about those who seem to care about the Ricoh being used for car boot sales. But again, it's not the real point is it?

To paraphrase Jerry Maguire "Show me the well costed business plan!"
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueScottie said:
DaleM said:
I personally don't give a rats ass about CCC/ACL it's trying to screw a CHARITY out of millions that gets my back up .
Click to expand...
How are they doing that, its already been stated a deal was done with Higgs only for the veto to come in...
Click to expand...

When did that happen? The Higgs only agreed a HOT with Sisu and then Sisu walked away and as far as I know have yet to reimburse the Higgs for their costs despite agreeing to do so. CCC couldn't veto the sale of the charity share as no sale had been agreed and HOT aren't binding.
 
Last edited:
E

ecky

Well-Known Member
Come on guys n gals all the infighting gets us nowhere all this passion and anger should be redirected at sisu and ACL and CCC to broker a deal about ownership and a sustained business plan where everyone benefits....
I have a dream.......
 
Danceswithhorses

Danceswithhorses

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueScottie said:
How are they doing that, its already been stated a deal was done with Higgs only for the veto to come in...
Click to expand...
Care to share your source for the veto ?
Pretty sure PWKH has stated that no veto was ever used...sisu walked away from a preliminary agreement with the charity and never came back-they still owe the charity for the legal fees incurred.
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
mark82 said:
Council/ACL aren't exactly blame free in the whole situation, yet people seem to love them. We would likely still be at the Ricoh now if they hadn't tried to replace the owners. Would still be a major dispute ongoing but I bet we would still be there.
Click to expand...

That's one of the craziest claims things I've ever seen posted on here. Did they attempt this coup before, during or after the rent being withheld. Just run it through for me, can you please?
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
GaryPendrysEyes said:
You just dont get 'business' at all do you? Due diligence, contracts, legals..all wooosh.
Click to expand...

You think all people should be tied into long-term rental contracts no matter the fact that circumstances had changed.

I imagine that you're suggesting that they should have agreed a much cheaper rental deal when they initially took over?(Fair enough)

If that's the case, then don't bleat on about Council Tax payers and local charities being short-changed when you're advocating that they should have had about £5million less income from the club than they have done.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
You think all people should be tied into long-term rental contracts no matter the fact that circumstances had changed.

I imagine that you're suggesting that they should have agreed a much cheaper rental deal when they initially took over?(Fair enough)

If that's the case, then don't bleat on about Council Tax payers and local charities being short-changed when you're advocating that they should have had about £5million less income from the club than they have done.
Click to expand...

Not quite a logical argument that last bit. Not wanting the council to get screwed != wanting them to get every penny they can.

All most people want is a deal thy benefits both sides.
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
You think all people should be tied into long-term rental contracts no matter the fact that circumstances had changed.
Click to expand...

No. But stadiums are capital-exceptional projects, with repayment profiles over decades being the norm. Be the contract with a bank, private equity of via third party such as ACL or CCC, long term contracts need to be in place for places such as this. Nobody is going to build a stadium and cost it's repayment over 30 years, with a tenant that'll only commit to 3, are they?
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
I wonder if it will be literally something like the roads being resurfaced on the slip road up to it or something.
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
You think all people should be tied into long-term rental contracts no matter the fact that circumstances had changed.

I imagine that you're suggesting that they should have agreed a much cheaper rental deal when they initially took over?(Fair enough)

If that's the case, then don't bleat on about Council Tax payers and local charities being short-changed when you're advocating that they should have had about £5million less income from the club than they have done.
Click to expand...

When have the taxpayers or the charity ever seen any money from ACL? I thought all the profits were reinvested in the arena.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 17 (members: 0, guests: 17)
Top