How long, accountability ? (1 Viewer)

[sky blue john]

The problem is many other clubs got a better deal
from the council which made them competitive.

Whatever way you cut it that's the rub. Would Swansea be where they are now with our council - Answer no

So which are we more hampered by paying 1.2million rent and playing at the ricoh or paying Sisu 1.2million + in admin fees ??????

 

---

[chiefdave]

The problem is many other clubs got a better deal from the council which made them competitive.

Whatever way you cut it that's the rub. Would Swansea be where they are now with our council - Answer no

That's a different question, I'm not asking if we got the best deal from the council. Had things gone to plan and the council not been involved at all would we have still been making payments, instead of rent against borrowing, and if so would they be more or less than the rent.

 

[Astute]

The problem is many other clubs got a better deal from the council which made them competitive.

Whatever way you cut it that's the rub. Would Swansea be where they are now with our council - Answer no

And all of these owners charge their clubs about 4m a year for nothing?

 

[torchomatic]

Whichever way you package it up and put a ribbon on it, the Ricoh was a massive mistake for Coventry City. And that is solely down to Bryan Richardson and his "ambition".

That's a different question, I'm not asking if we got the best deal from the council. Had things gone to plan and the council not been involved at all would we have still been making payments, instead of rent against borrowing, and if so would they be more or less than the rent.

 

[Astute]

So which are we more hampered by paying 1.2million rent and playing at the ricoh or paying Sisu 1.2million + in admin fees ??????

The interest charges for the debt that they have built up was 1.2m the last time they published the accounts. The management fees were over 2.6m IIRC

 

[M&B Stand]

Source?

We've seen PWKH's report that there was "a couple of half hearted attempts" and the mention in passing in one board minutes. Hardly paints a picture of CCFC banging on the door begging for a better deal. We also have Sisu on record during the Brody era stating the rent is OK and that there were no issues with ACL whatsoever.

Excuse me if I don't get the violins out just yet. And that's ignoring the rather large point that at this point no-one is asking for £1.2m/year and it can in no way be shown to be the issue that caused our debt either. In fact the only people to ever mention it in public aside from Brody was Fisher, except now he's moved on to freehold of a stadium (taking the scenic route through "we need pie cash"ville) and you're still stuck on that.

Even leaving aside all of that. Surely even you can admit that the cost to CCFC of taking a ground share to "solve" this "problem" has hardly been effective.

May I also (AGAIN) point out that until you are complaining about the interest and management fees, that far exceed the rental of a Premiership quality stadium that provides revenue, that Sisu are charging with the same veracity you attack the council (and Higgs, but you always seem to forget their role) for "bleeding the club dry" I'll find it hard to believe you actually have the club's interests at heart rather than a narrowminded political point to make.

I find it hard to believe you have the clubs interest at heart when you jump to the defence of ACL and the council as soon as any criticism is aimed their way.
Fair play to them for getting new tenants in and letting Leicesters youth team play there...one in the eye for ccfc that.

 

[Astute]

Whichever way you package it up and put a ribbon on it, the Ricoh was a massive mistake for Coventry City. And that is solely down to Bryan Richardson and his "ambition".

We just about all agree on this. But us being in Northampton is down to Joy wanting to make lots of money for her investors. Nothing else.

So what do you think of the near 4m that SISU charges our club each year then Torch?

 

[lewys33]

The problem is many other clubs got a better deal from the council which made them competitive.

Whatever way you cut it that's the rub. Would Swansea be where they are now with our council - Answer no

Who says they wouldn't? Main difference being Swansea own part of the management company for their stadium.

Are you honestly going to suggest that the rent was the main reason we are up shit creek? Behave yourself.

 

[Astute]

I find it hard to believe you have the clubs interest at heart when you jump to the defence of ACL and the council as soon as any criticism is aimed their way.
Fair play to them for getting new tenants in and letting Leicesters youth team play there...one in the eye for ccfc that.

Shmeee states facts. You say he is jumping to the defence of ACL. You rant on about the rent of 1.2 being too much but always ignore the near 4m that SISU charge our club. And I bet that you would never consider this to be jumping to the defence of SISU?

Double standards of the highest order.

 

[torchomatic]

I think it's shit.

We just about all agree on this. But us being in Northampton is down to Joy wanting to make lots of money for her investors. Nothing else.

So what do you think of the near 4m that SISU charges our club each year then Torch?

 

[olderskyblue]

Over £60M thanks to Richardson. Or would you like me to say it was SISU? And you said it yourself "owned". A very important word.

Torch, you can say what you like, but as SISU never owned CCFC when we were at Highfield Road, I would have found it a strange thing for you to say.

I just asked a question I didn't know the answer to.

 

[torchomatic]

OK, apologies.

Over £60M yet people like Shmmee say we were financially better off under Richardson.

Torch, you can say what you like, but as SISU never owned CCFC when we were at Highfield Road, I would have found it a strange thing for you to say.

I just asked a question I didn't know the answer to.

 

[Astute]

I think it's shit.

So is there any chance from now of when blaming our troubles on 1.2m rent that you could also mention the near 4m they charge our club each year for a non value added expense?

 

[Grendel]

So which are we more hampered by paying 1.2million rent and playing at the ricoh or paying Sisu 1.2million + in admin fees ??????

That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.

Competing against teams playing rent free or less than £200,000 a season and trying to compete with them was a car crash waiting to happen

Management fees are pretty normal by the way so why you get excited by them I am not sure.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

If everyone put as much time and effort into getting 100k signatures, as they did on bitching over something that is actually irrelvant now, we'd have 100,000 in no time.

Just saying....

WM

 

[Astute]

OK, apologies.

Over £60M yet people like Shmmee say we were financially better off under Richardson.

CCFC were about 30m in debt when SISU took over. Most of this were wiped out.

SISU started with an almost clean slate yet after 6 years were 70m in debt.

Neither is very good, but one got us in debt trying to make us successful. No idea how the other one could be more than twice as bad and keep taking our club lower :thinking about:

 

[Astute]

That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.

Competing against teams playing rent free or less than £200,000 a season and trying to compete with them was a car crash waiting to happen

Management fees are pretty normal by the way so why you get excited by them I am not sure.

And as you know the break even was so high because of the wages being given and not the rent.

Show me another 3rd division club that are being charged about 4m a year.

 

[asb]

I don't know about accountability.

They do seem to fail on their counting ability, and their ability to file accounts.

 

[chiefdave]

That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.

And our average that season was 21,301 so I don't think that small shortfall is the root of all our problems. Of course the break even amount depends on other expenditure and having a large squad of older players on relatively big wages was a huge contributing factor.

 

[Astute]

If everyone put as much time and effort into getting 100k signatures, as they did on bitching over something that is actually irrelvant now, we'd have 100,000 in no time.

Just saying....

WM

Bitching?

More like trying to work out how certain people keep mentioning the 1.2m rent and blaming all of our problems on it but never mentioning another cost to our club of over three times this amount.

 

[Grendel]

And all of these owners charge their clubs about 4m a year for nothing?

And as you know the break even was so high because of the wages being given and not the rent.

Show me another 3rd division club that are being charged about 4m a year.

Show me a fan who demands the rents paid and wages are slashed.

If like Swansea their council gave the ground for free you have £1.2 million to spend on wages don't you?

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Bitching?

More like trying to work out how certain people keep mentioning the 1.2m rent and blaming all of our problems on it but never mentioning another cost to our club of over three times this amount.

Err...yet again, my point still stands?!

WM

 

[Astute]

Err...yet again, my point still stands?!

WM

Not bitching but asking. And my point still stands as you keep mentioning the rent but never the charges.

Your defence is that anyone that doesn't agree with your views on the rent being our main reason for not having money is bitching

 

[duffer]

Of course it's the owner's fault - who else could it possibly be?

SISU knew exactly where we were at the point of taking over - there are people here who must think due diligence is rocket science.

The lease and terms were by far the simplest things to see out of the whole package. Seriously, does anyone here think that the rent agreement was hidden in the small print of page 972 underneath the expenses for Sky Blue Sam's dry cleaning? The proof that the rent wasn't an issue when they first turned up is that it took so long to become one. Yes, earlier owners screwed up in a colossal way, but that doesn't excuse the absolute pig's ear that SISU have made of running the club.

They paid nothing for the club, and took over a relatively small debt which they magnified into a colossal one.

At least our previous owners had the good grace to walk away when it was clear that they'd finally and completely failed. This bunch of chancers faced with a failure of even greater magnitude (30-60m debt, League One!) have also walked away - but rather than accept their failure and move on they've taken the whole club with them.

They're now willing to hold us to ransom thirty-five miles from home, rather than cut a deal that would actually make great financial sense (other than if they want to break ACL).

And there's still people making excuses for them.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Show me a fan who demands the rents paid and wages are slashed.

If like Swansea their council gave the ground for free you have £1.2 million to spend on wages don't you?

Well I want the club to be run at break even over any 5 year cycle.

There are a lot of people who have come to a similar conclusion and the FFP regs are about stopping clubs accumulating unmanageable debts.

That is not to say that there are not fans with a short term view, but that doesn't mean they should be listened too when it comes to formulating a management strategy.

 

[sky blue john]

That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at
the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.

Competing against teams playing rent free or less than £200,000 a season and trying to compete with them was a car crash waiting to happen

Management fees are pretty normal by the way so why you get excited by them I am not sure.

Lol priceless !!!!
I get excited because the management fees are far higher and make the rent insignificant in comparison....

 

[will am i]

Not just that, liebherr was a multi billionaire. When in L1 they could afford to pay 1.5m for Lambert, and offer big wages for others.

And we have apparently spent £60 getting to League 1. If the rent was a bit cheaper maybe it would have only cost SISU £50m to get us there. They are clueless when it comes to running a football club

 

[M&B Stand]

Shmeee states facts. You say he is jumping to the defence of ACL. You rant on about the rent of 1.2 being too much but always ignore the near 4m that SISU charge our club. And I bet that you would never consider this to be jumping to the defence of SISU?

Double standards of the highest order.

I've never mentioned 1.2 million. It was ridiculous though wasn't it for 23 games a year, now you mention it. Who signed us up for that??
By the way, I fuckin despise sisu, I want them gone as soon as possible.
But the councils apparent contempt for the football club ain't gonna be too attractive to any potential new owner is it?

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Not bitching but asking. And my point still stands as you keep mentioning the rent but never the charges.

Your defence is that anyone that doesn't agree with your views on the rent being our main reason for not having money is bitching

I didn't single you or anyone else out as not agreeing with my posts. For someone who is Astute, you don't really read things in detail, do you? I don't disagree that those charges, if correct, are a joke. I've not once denied that. OSB (surely the Oracle on here as far as financial knowledge goes) said in an earlier post:

Currently they are in terms of CCFC alone adopting a far better approach to get a viable business, living within means, only increasing debt if absolutely necessary, dealing with the lease & licence etc

To some, that might justify management fees. In principle to me, yes, it does. The amount however, I highly disagree with. I take the word bitching back...what I actually meant was 'that if everyone put as much effort into getting 100k signatures, as they do to going over and over and over and over the same information time and time again (both sides - not picking on senstive souls), we'd be there in no time'.

That's all.

WM

 

[Grendel]

And all of these owners charge their clubs about 4m a year for nothing?

Lol priceless !!!!
I get excited because the management fees are far higher and make the rent insignificant in comparison....

You must have both missed my question. Do you think Swansea would have prospered better with the arrangements with their own council or ours offering our deal? Nothing to do with sisu or management charges just answer;

A Coventry council
B Swansea council

* - cue for James Smith to frantically log in and mention the European Commission.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.

Competing against teams playing rent free or less than £200,000 a season and trying to compete with them was a car crash waiting to happen

Management fees are pretty normal by the way so why you get excited by them I am not sure.

Do you think if we were £5m less in debt than we are now it would make much difference to the decisions SISU are making, or even much difference to the car crash that was waiting to happen?

 

[Grendel]

And all of these owners charge their clubs about 4m a year for nothing?

Do you think if we were £5m less in debt than we are now it would make much difference to the decisions SISU are making, or even much difference to the car crash that was waiting to happen?

You seem to be missing the point. We were over £30 million in debt pre sisu and operating with one arm tied behind our back.

Sisu were stupid to take the risk. Any sensible purchaser would have gone elsewhere anyway - no one would deal with a council tying the club to such punitive trading conditions.

 

[dongonzalos]

I just think six years is an incredible length of time to still hear people making reference to damage done before SISU came.

What has gone on before cannot be dismissed completely, but i find it strange when people keep dredging it up when SISU are criticised.

We were in a mess when they came. They came because of that mess with their eyes wide open.

SISU bought our club at point B promising to get us back to A.

The previous regimes took us from A to B.

SISU have took us to C (division 3) and now D (playing 35 miles away. )

Their actions to take us to D is through shocking business decisions is nothing short of abysmal.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

You seem to be missing the point. We were over £30 million in debt pre sisu and operating with one arm tied behind our back.

Sisu were stupid to take the risk. Any sensible purchaser would have gone elsewhere anyway - no one would deal with a council tying the club to such punitive trading conditions.

You seem to have missed my question.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

And there's still people making excuses for them.

FFS! No one is making excuses for them!!! EVERYONE WOULD PREFER CCFC WITHOUT SISU HERE AND WANT THEM GONE. Clear?!