Response to Ms Garlick (9 Viewers)

[Nick]

So you came on to post your reply but didn't want any feedback or comments about it? Maybe you should have just posted your reply and left it at that if you didn't want comments that didn't entirely agree with you for you to start throwing insults around.

 

---

[Spionkop]

You didn't tell him about his medication Nick. You're slipping.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

So you came on to post your reply but didn't want any feedback or comments about it? Maybe you should have just posted your reply and left it at that if you didn't want comments that didn't entirely agree with you for you to start throwing insults around.

Don't be so bloody stupid. What has become of you? You use to be a reasoned and sensible poster, but have turned into a total WUM.

And by the way Nick, how would you have responded to the incredible stupidity of Paxman's statement that I highlighted? Should such stupidity be left unremarked? Or do you actually believe that he is correct? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......

 

[Nick]

Don't be so bloody stupid. What has become of you? You use to be a reasoned and sensible poster, but have turned into a total WUM.

What did I say that was stupid? He posted out a thought out reply rather than 1 line comment, maybe people won't agree with all of it, or any of it but to say you didn't post it and he is a moron and I am the WUM? Did you post it to expect a hero's welcome etc then moan when somebody disagrees?

Maybe half the people on this forum should see what a WUM is, it doesn't mean somebody with a different opinion.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

What did I say that was stupid? He posted out a thought out reply rather than 1 line comment, maybe people won't agree with all of it, or any of it but to say you didn't post it and he is a moron and I am the WUM? Did you post it to expect a hero's welcome etc then moan when somebody disagrees?

Maybe half the people on this forum should see what a WUM is, it doesn't mean somebody with a different opinion.

No Nick, his statement was biased and wrong and included statements of incredible financial stupidity. I did not respond to anyone else until you entered the fray in what unfortunately has become your usual manner.

 

[Nick]

No Nick, his statement was biased and wrong and included statements of incredible financial stupidity. I did not respond to anyone else until you entered the fray in what unfortunately has become your usual manner.

Feel free to correct him and come back as that is part of the debate, any need for him to be called an ignorant moron etc?

 

[RPHunt]

Feel free to correct him and come back as that is part of the debate, any need for him to be called an ignorant moron etc?

I do hope this is a sign that you will in future be chastising Grendel for using similar insults - in the interests of balance of course.

 

[Nick]

I do hope this is a sign that you will in future be chastising Grendel for using similar insults - in the interests of balance of course.

Of course, feel free to report them and point them out.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Feel free to correct him and come back as that is part of the debate, any need for him to be called an ignorant moron etc?

Nick, you avoided answering my question concerning this statement from Paxman:

As for increased revenue not equating to more profit, I'm mighty glad you are not my accountant!

No only is he attacking my professional competence, he is making an incredibly stupid and moronic statement that is patently incorrect, as any competent businessman or financial person would confirm. He pretends to a knowledge and reasonableness that he simply does not have. He fully deserves to be referred to as a moron for making such a moronic statement. And as for his response being reasoned, please get real. It was biased rubbish, as nearly all of his "reasoned" posts are.
It is very clear where you are coming from, but please show a modicum of restraint in your one-sided responses.

 

[Nick]

Nick, you avoided answering my question concerning this statement from Paxman:

As for increased revenue not equating to more profit, I'm mighty glad you are not my accountant!

No only is he attacking my professional competence, he is making an incredibly stupid and moronic statement that is patently incorrect, as any competent businessman or financial person would confirm. He pretends to a knowledge and reasonableness that he simply does not have. He fully deserves to be referred to as a moron for making such a moronic statement. And as for his response being reasoned, please get real. It was biased rubbish, as nearly all of his "reasoned" posts are.
It is very clear where you are coming from, but please show a modicum of restraint in your one-sided responses.

I am not being one sided, to be honest I am not an accountant but feel free to blow him out of the water with accountant speak and prove why he is wrong I also never said Paxman was correct in anything he said, just thing sometimes people can make much more of a point by just proving people wrong and saying "this is why you are wrong" or "I think you are wrong because".

 

[Astute]

So the OP is inferring a new stadium is not viable for our football club and we should simply consider paying rent only to play on a pitch at the Ricoh without any sharing of other monies generated there? And before you misleadingly talk of 'pie' money not helping, you as an accountant should look deeper into what monies are generated entirely on match days at the Ricoh and work out what is indeed being lost? It's not the case of sharing in a few concession stands.

Further more what security of tenure do the football club have just renting a pitch on match days?
Our own stadium would increase the value of the football club and the stadium would increase in value. Every revenue stream would be the clubs and there is no saying concerts would not be included in that. The development around the new stadium is also an area of income...and so it goes on. Pretty much what the Ricoh was meant to be from the get go? The only problem is the football club have no ownership or share in those participating revenue streams.
As for increased revenue not equating to more profit, I'm mighty glad you are not my accountant!

Before I'm called some SISU puppet I'll state that I'm far from it. All I am interested in is what makes sense for my football club, not what appeases the council and their puppet ACL but my football club who originally started the new stadium project for this city. They should own it, in part or totally. That is where we should be and I believe eventually will be. The new stadium is not a nonsense idea but I sincerely hope SISU and the council will see sense eventually and find a way to unite the football club to the Ricoh.

So called 'offers' have not been formal and I suggest we will not see anything new to come from the council until the JR is concluded. Clearly SISU have made a stance and the council have a bigger headache than they envisaged at this point. My fear is we will end up with a stadium under used and perhaps sold off cheaply at some point in the future or even torn down.
Will SISU keep up their stance? They said they intend to for up to 5 years. If as some believe they won't and many of you get your wish and the council do not give in to SISU's 'demands' then we could end up without a football club at all. Gone for good! Try to see the long term picture, 5, 10 years from now.
Support the owners in reuniting the club with the stadium. To do that you don't need to be a SISU supporter but you do need to make our council see sense and show they care about having a football club in our city and keeping the Ricoh dream alive.
Football club owners come and go and if the current crop owned the Ricoh then they would soon depart and I'd be glad to see the back of them.

Timothy has said it would only be a football ground. A small one at that. Small concerts?

So building a ground with debt would make our club worth more? The new ground to go up in value? The Ricoh must be worth 200m then

 

[ccfcway]

Why don't we all just email "fuck off bitch" to her. That would be the City way, wouldn't it?

not sure it is.

 

[Huckerby]

I can't remember saying "I believe this stadium will be built". I just said it is a bit harsh to question her as a fan or sincerity without knowing her.

He clearly states that he has concluded she is not a true fan by the actions she is taken - i.e continuing to spout this bullshit about the Coventry Area and the fact she is pretending that the new tinpot stadium is a viable option.

Anyone who does that is not a fan (or is very fucking stupid but I think we've all came to the general consensus she is an educated businesswoman).

Really pisses me off how you play SISU (and puppets) advocate all the time

 

[Nick]

He clearly states that he has concluded she is not a true fan by the actions she is taken - i.e continuing to spout this bullshit about the Coventry Area and the fact she is pretending that the new tinpot stadium is a viable option.

Anyone who does that is not a fan (or is very fucking stupid but I think we've all came to the general consensus she is an educated businesswoman).

Really pisses me off how you play SISU (and puppets) advocate all the time

Maybe it is just a fan that has different opinions to you?

 

[thaiskyblue]

Why don't we all just email "fuck off bitch" to her. That would be the City way, wouldn't it?

 

[Huckerby]

Maybe it is just a fan that has different opinions to you?

Different opinions about what? Whether or not the stadium will be built and whether a new tiny stadium will be more profitable?

In other words, you mean maybe its just a really stupid fan?

 

[valiant15]

I have not posted on this forum for a long time as I quite frankly cannot accept the stance of those people that either appear to follow the SISU point of view, those who accept the SISU point of view, or in particular those who consider themselves to be being "reasonable". I am not looking for either argument or discussion.
I too received an e-mail from Ms Garlick, which some might consider pointless as my e-mail address clearly shows that I live in Switzerland. This is the reply I sent to her this morning:




Dear Ms Garlick,

Thank you for your e-mail below.

I feel that I must point out to you that I consider your actions ill-advised and to the detriment of our club. That you very carefully speak only of “in the Coventry *area*” and equally carefully never speak of returning to Coventry itself speaks volumes as to where you are prepared to position yourself as a self-stated supporter of our club. That you find the actions of SISU/Otium to be in order to the extent that you are prepared to actively assist them in attaining a goal that can only be to the detriment of our club I find puzzling in the extreme.
As an accountant, the claims of SISU with their talk of having to have access to all revenues etc. is utter nonsense. The pie money is not going to make any difference at all to the money available to pay wages, and as a business woman you must be very aware that the truth is that a small stadium somewhere in the Coventry “area” is going to be far less viable than the Ricoh would be under the revised conditions already offered, with many thousands more supporters buying tickets and paying the pie money that SISU laughingly deem so vital to the survival of the club.
You must surely know that increased turnover does not equate to increased profitability or increased liquidity, and that this entire notion is a red herring. Increasing turnover merely increases the potential to pay slightly more in wages, but most certainly does not necessarily mean that there is actually more cash available to pay wages. This has been a very misleading and devious line spouted continuously by SISU, probably with the deliberate intent to mislead supporters.
Quite frankly, the entire notion of a little stadium outside of Coventry being more financially viable than being at the Ricoh under renegotiated terms is ridiculous, and you must surely be aware of this, which is why I find myself questioning your motives as a supposed supporter. Given that I do not believe you are acting in the interests of our club, but are in fact acting on behalf of SISU/Otium, I would request that you do not contact me again as I have no faith or belief in either your sincerity or your being a genuine supporter of our club.

Regards,

How comes theres no like off the usual sisu rent boys like summerisle,torch,nick,rfc,stupot,paxman,you know the small minority of arseholes that are still up fishers ring piece.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Of course, feel free to report them and point them out.

Here's a few

What a prick

He has no cause this isn't a political struggle you buffoon.

That's handy jack. Why don't you fuck off.

The likes of him and Mr T are wankers. They should be banned from the forum.

And you'd love that wouldn't you? I bet you were laughing by the time the 5th goal went in.

You are pathetic.

Oh goody - Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber are on together.

I think you take being stupid to a whole new level.

Bore off you sanctimonious twat.

Have you not had the benefit of an education? What are you struggling with? Do the facts not fit with your warped and distorted view of the truth?

It is the Sunday sport equivalent of sports broadcasting. It appeals to a very low demographic which I assume is why you like it and I don't.

Your not very bright are you?

Hunt is the antithesis of RFC - an idiot that sits on the other side of the fence.

You aren't that dimwit Alan that always phones up CWR are you? Tonight he excelled himself in his stupidity.

Well if the cap fits wear it arsehole.

I've had a note from the pig shit union saying they are suing you for defamation. To even compare GPE's IQ to pigshit has caused them outrage. They said its even worse than the last comparison with Italiahorse.

I think the real purpose of this thread has clearly gone above your head

Never mind

It is serious and sadly you are too dumb to understand the nature of the strategy.

Lets use crayons and make ot simple for you.

 

[martcov]

"Support the owners in reuniting the club with the stadium. To do that you don't need to be a SISU supporter but you do need to make our council see sense and show they care about having a football club in our city and keeping the Ricoh dream alive.
Football club owners come and go and if the current crop owned the Ricoh then they would soon depart and I'd be glad to see the back of them."
Our Council represents over 300,000 residents of the city. They are obliged to act in their interests. Supporting a hedge fund does not come into it. Why should the council help them reunite their asset with the Ricoh? At the end of the day it is up to SISU to come up with a serious suggestion. Long term lease? Buying ACL to get the pie money etc? Up until now they have made no formal offer or plausible suggestion. The aim should be to restore trust and establish a working relationship with the council. Slagging the council off and threatening to build a rival stadium to the RICOH in the vicinity does exactly the opposite. The council doesn't need SISU, but SISU needs the council - any talk of a new stadium is just BS. The team is CCFC and if it moves out of Coventry, the fan base will be lost forever. We all know that, apart from RFC. ( no I can't prove it, but the support and tradition was built up in Cov and the attendances at Sixfields suggest that ).

 

[bigfatronssba]

Anyone who actively supports a new stadium outside the city is not a true fan.

I don't see how a Coventry fan would assist in Coventry playing outside of Coventry.

 

[Nick]

Here's a few

Can you report them then? By using the report button?

 

[tokyojim]

Sky Blue Swiss! Which part of Switzerland? I am in Geneva. Not many city shirts around here . . .

 

[Paxman II]

It's interesting that I'm a moron. Hmm let me see: two degrees, operated 5 businesses successfully, speak a foreign language fluently. Well that for starters. I'm not prone to any sort of boast but thought in this instance I should just set that record straight. So moron? I don't think so.

As for more turnover not equating in any way to more profit? Well earn more and you have to pay more taxes but you still end up earning more. You would have to be a moron not to! I obviously touched a nerve with you. I did not call your opinions stupid but merely focussed on what my opinion is. Yours is clearly different which you are entitled to.

My main argument was that I was not one sided as you said. I even stated I was not a SISU fan. I was trying to make the point that given the circumstances of where we are then the better options may well be to allow them to purchase said stadium and this would in turn be good for all and in time see the back of them. They are indeed a hedge fund and long term operations in a football club is not their remit. With the Ricoh they would have the base to work from but I'm sure eventually depart at a price attracted to multitude of potential owners particularly as we are a 'big city club' and not Yeovil for example. This may achieve back some or even all on they invested, clear the club they laden with debt and come out of the nightmare they helped make.

I also fail to see why so many on here seem to back the council so much? I understand their position but they need to do more. I have never been comfortable with them finishing the project started by the football club then almost hijacking the situation presented to them, in order to gain the freehold of a major project and then simply expect the originators of that project (CCFC) to be happy with renting the pitch back and nothing else? Moreover they were (and SISU too) quite happy to let the huge rent of 1.2m per annum plus match day cost go on for a number of years before relegation really made one side sit up and realise it was ridiculous in the first place. Are you really happy with that? If SISU had not made the stand then some other owner would have. Yes SISU and the way they set about it was and is deplorable but none the less they did it and we are stuck with them - for now. So you want them gone and your football club back like we all do and playing at the Ricoh? Then as fans we must look at what both sides are doing or not doing and that includes the council and their owned management company ACL. We know about SISU, enough byte space has been taken up on that this last few years but let me ask you this:

What should the council be doing? Can they affect what is happening now? Do they want to? We should all be as bemused by the councils shallow responses as with SISU's.
SISU say they will build a stadium, they will not return to the Ricoh unless something more concrete is offered, possibly freehold or part there of or even perhaps a 99 year lease on the site, who knows? Can they be any more forthcoming with their desires at this point? They disagree with how the council bailed out itself with taxpayer money by assisting the leaseholder, ACL. This could very well be proven. Either way I suggest both sides find a solution to the obvious and unite club and stadium regardless. The faint hope that you can starve out SISU at this juncture and see them sell up for peanuts and leave is a fairy tail. We need to work with what we have, what is current and find a solution.

There are no miracle workers here, no mystic buyers or white knights such as Hoffman and co. No nobody wants this deck of cards but expect SISU to play with them. Watch the Hoffman and co respondents come forth if ever the club and stadium get united again with some meat on the bones i.e. a freehold stadium owned by CCFC?

 

[skybluetony176]

Sky Blue Swiss! Which part of Switzerland? I am in Geneva. Not many city shirts around here . . .

A bit like Northampton then.

 

[Paxman II]

"Support the owners in reuniting the club with the stadium. To do that you don't need to be a SISU supporter but you do need to make our council see sense and show they care about having a football club in our city and keeping the Ricoh dream alive.
Football club owners come and go and if the current crop owned the Ricoh then they would soon depart and I'd be glad to see the back of them."
Our Council represents over 300,000 residents of the city. They are obliged to act in their interests. Supporting a hedge fund does not come into it. Why should the council help them reunite their asset with the Ricoh? At the end of the day it is up to SISU to come up with a serious suggestion. Long term lease? Buying ACL to get the pie money etc? Up until now they have made no formal offer or plausible suggestion. The aim should be to restore trust and establish a working relationship with the council. Slagging the council off and threatening to build a rival stadium to the RICOH in the vicinity does exactly the opposite. The council doesn't need SISU, but SISU needs the council - any talk of a new stadium is just BS. The team is CCFC and if it moves out of Coventry, the fan base will be lost forever. We all know that, apart from RFC. ( no I can't prove it, but the support and tradition was built up in Cov and the attendances at Sixfields suggest that ).

That's the point I'm making that so many are blinkered about...we need to support our club not in the terms of SISU but our club which will always have differing ownership and the 330,00 people of Coventry would also see that as common sense. Generations past and present are affected and our club is an important part of the infrastructure and commerce of this city.

 

[Paxman II]

Anyone who actively supports a new stadium outside the city is not a true fan.

I don't see how a Coventry fan would assist in Coventry playing outside of Coventry.

Is this not the scenario ever present in supporting the Speedway team? I don't particularly get hung up on such geographical issues unless we were talking about way outside the city.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Is this not the scenario ever present in supporting the Speedway team? I don't particularly get hung up on such geographical issues unless we were talking about way outside the city.

No.

The Speedway team were not founded in the city, have never operated within the city, and spent a great number of years called the Brandon Bees.

How far out from the city does the club have to move before you find it unacceptable?

 

[shmmeee]

It's interesting that I'm a moron. Hmm let me see: two degrees, operated 5 businesses successfully, speak a foreign language fluently. Well that for starters. I'm not prone to any sort of boast but thought in this instance I should just set that record straight. So moron? I don't think so.

As for more turnover not equating in any way to more profit? Well earn more and you have to pay more taxes but you still end up earning more. You would have to be a moron not to! I obviously touched a nerve with you. I did not call your opinions stupid but merely focussed on what my opinion is. Yours is clearly different which you are entitled to.

My main argument was that I was not one sided as you said. I even stated I was not a SISU fan. I was trying to make the point that given the circumstances of where we are then the better options may well be to allow them to purchase said stadium and this would in turn be good for all and in time see the back of them. They are indeed a hedge fund and long term operations in a football club is not their remit. With the Ricoh they would have the base to work from but I'm sure eventually depart at a price attracted to multitude of potential owners particularly as we are a 'big city club' and not Yeovil for example. This may achieve back some or even all on they invested, clear the club they laden with debt and come out of the nightmare they helped make.

I also fail to see why so many on here seem to back the council so much? I understand their position but they need to do more. I have never been comfortable with them finishing the project started by the football club then almost hijacking the situation presented to them, in order to gain the freehold of a major project and then simply expect the originators of that project (CCFC) to be happy with renting the pitch back and nothing else? Moreover they were (and SISU too) quite happy to let the huge rent of 1.2m per annum plus match day cost go on for a number of years before relegation really made one side sit up and realise it was ridiculous in the first place. Are you really happy with that? If SISU had not made the stand then some other owner would have. Yes SISU and the way they set about it was and is deplorable but none the less they did it and we are stuck with them - for now. So you want them gone and your football club back like we all do and playing at the Ricoh? Then as fans we must look at what both sides are doing or not doing and that includes the council and their owned management company ACL. We know about SISU, enough byte space has been taken up on that this last few years but let me ask you this:

What should the council be doing? Can they affect what is happening now? Do they want to? We should all be as bemused by the councils shallow responses as with SISU's.
SISU say they will build a stadium, they will not return to the Ricoh unless something more concrete is offered, possibly freehold or part there of or even perhaps a 99 year lease on the site, who knows? Can they be any more forthcoming with their desires at this point? They disagree with how the council bailed out itself with taxpayer money by assisting the leaseholder, ACL. This could very well be proven. Either way I suggest both sides find a solution to the obvious and unite club and stadium regardless. The faint hope that you can starve out SISU at this juncture and see them sell up for peanuts and leave is a fairy tail. We need to work with what we have, what is current and find a solution.

There are no miracle workers here, no mystic buyers or white knights such as Hoffman and co. No nobody wants this deck of cards but expect SISU to play with them. Watch the Hoffman and co respondents come forth if ever the club and stadium get united again with some meat on the bones i.e. a freehold stadium owned by CCFC?

I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone else.

It's very simple, yet no one with views aligned to yours can answer it:

What benefit is there to CCFC in owning the freehold over a long term lease with access to revenues?

Oh and a small piece of advice from someone who's been online for nearly 20 years. Stating qualifications is ridiculous online. I should know, after all I'm a 5 time heavyweight champion and Kate Moss is noshing me off right now.

 

[shmmeee]

No.

The Speedway team were not founded in the city, have never operated within the city, and spent a great number of years called the Brandon Bees.

How far out from the city does the club have to move before you find it unacceptable?

Evidently more than 35 miles...

 

[Hobo]

No.

The Speedway team were not founded in the city, have never operated within the city, and spent a great number of years called the Brandon Bees.

How far out from the city does the club have to move before you find it unacceptable?

Coventry Speedway was originally at Lythals Lane. Hence Stadium Close.

 

[Paxman II]

I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone else.

It's very simple, yet no one with views aligned to yours can answer it:

What benefit is there to CCFC in owning the freehold over a long term lease with access to revenues?

Oh and a small piece of advice from someone who's been online for nearly 20 years. Stating qualifications is ridiculous online. I should know, after all I'm a 5 time heavyweight champion and Kate Moss is noshing me off right now.

Shmmeee: I do not disagree with the view that a 99 year lease or something similar could not suffice the same. Value may be a little different and security of tenure and not to mention raising funds against it but yes in principle why not. Perhaps that is another area SISU would consider.
Let me ask you this: Would you accept a leasehold of the sort you mention, given to the football club? Or the fact SISU currently own us makes a difference?

As for stating qualifications? Is there any better way of clarifying one is not a moron?

 

[Paxman II]

Coventry Speedway was originally at Lythals Lane. Hence Stadium Close.

I have a close affinity with the Speedway team and over the decades have not ever thought of them as being other than a 'Coventry' based team.
If a new stadium was built on the edge of Coventry, Ryton, Brandon, Exhall and the like then that to me is good enough. Heck some folks come a long way across town to the Ricoh as it is. I never heard much opposition when the proposed move from Highfield Road and being fairly central happened?

 

[ccfctommy]

Anyone who actively supports a new stadium outside the city is not a true fan.

I don't see how a Coventry fan would assist in Coventry playing outside of Coventry.

What about Exhall? Not that I believe this stadium will ver happen but if it does Exhall will be okay with me.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Coventry Speedway was originally at Lythals Lane. Hence Stadium Close.

Looking at Wikipedia it seems they did race a few times at Lythalls Lane, (last time in 1936), but they were founded at Brandon.

 

[bigfatronssba]

What about Exhall? Not that I believe this stadium will ver happen but if it does Exhall will be okay with me.

Its not ok with me when absolutely no attempt has been made to move back within the city.