How long, accountability ? (14 Viewers)

[Skyblueweeman]

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.

Dong, if there hadn't of been a mess in the first place, do you think SISU would be here?

 

---

[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.

I think from reading between the lines, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you accept that 5 or 6 years of high rent is not making a difference to our current plight. I of course accept that the financial situation was always likely to end badly, but maybe not quite so drawn out as it seems to be now, and not with the Northampton charade.

 

[Grendel]

Dong, if there hadn't of been a mess in the first place, do you think SISU would be here?

If the club had a competitive arrangement to play at the Ricoh and had share in all revenues other parties would have been interested. We'd be an attractive proposition as opposed to a very unattractive one.

 

[dadgad]

Accountability is eternal, Gawd said so.
The law says so, and I say so.

 

[duffer]

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

Calm down lad, all that shouting will give you a sore throat.

If you read this thread I think there are a number of excuses being made. From poor due dligence to it's Richardson/McGinnity/The Council's fault. Not sure I agree with that, to be honest.

 

[duffer]

If the club had a competitive arrangement to play at the Ricoh and had share in all revenues other parties would have been interested. We'd be an attractive proposition as opposed to a very unattractive one.

Utterly specious reasoning, as usual.

Your evidence for this is where exactly?

 

[Grendel]

Utterly specious reasoning, as usual.

Your evidence for this is where exactly?

Well you seem very keen on due dillegence. So what do you think? A potential buyer would more interested if;

A the council had offered a peppercorn rent on a 99 year lease and third shares in the management company free of charge

B £1.2 million rent plus matchday costs and no match fm day revenues

Which is the more attractive long term prospect?

 

[dongonzalos]

Dong, if there hadn't of been a mess in the first place, do you think SISU would be here?

Nope there was a huge mess. That is what they specialise in. Making a profit out of other people's messes. They can here aware of the mess and from that point onwards I judge them with a clean slate. Nobody duped them. It was all there. They have since made a bit of a mess a complete and utter bomb site.

 

[Grendel]

Nope there was a huge mess. That is what they specialise in. Making a profit out of other people's messes. They can here aware of the mess and from that point onwards I judge them with a clean slate. Nobody duped them. It was all there. They have since made a bit of a mess a complete and utter bomb site.

Ignoring the usual council sycophants that trawl this site has this thread gone to plan?

 

[ccfcway]

When SISU joined, Ray Ranson said

"sisu will leave this club in a much better position than they found it"

If they left today, would that be the case ?

 

[chiefdave]

Well you seem very keen on due dillegence. So what do you think? A potential buyer would more interested if;

A the council had offered a peppercorn rent on a 99 year lease and third shares in the management company free of charge

B £1.2 million rent plus matchday costs and no match fm day revenues

Which is the more attractive long term prospect?

Well of course the club had 50% of the management company and 100% of matchday revenues and chose to sell it and never exercise the buy back clause. Why should the club now be handed a third back for free?

 

[duffer]

Well you seem very keen on due dillegence. So what do you think? A potential buyer would more interested if;

A the council had offered a peppercorn rent on a 99 year lease and third shares in the management company free of charge

B £1.2 million rent plus matchday costs and no match fm day revenues

Which is the more attractive long term prospect?

Hey, Grendel. Answer my question first. It's incredibly rude, answering a question with a question.

You're saying the Ricoh deal put others off. Where's your evidence?

It upset SISU so much that they didn't even make it an issue when they first took over - that's how much it bothered them.

 

[Grendel]

Well of course the club had 50% of the management company and 100% of matchday revenues and chose to sell it and never exercise the buy back clause. Why should the club now be handed a third back for free?

Would you want it if its free? I get the impression no.

Swansea council thought different - I find your comments for a so called fan very strange. We have paid millions over the odds in rent so we deserve them back for free.

 

[ccfcway]

i sometimes wonder if there is a parrallel world accountancy forum out there...where all they do all day is talk about the left back at their local club, or what formation their local team should play on saturday.

Time and time again "Spreadsheet" or "EBITDA" threads ruined by football talk

 

[chiefdave]

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?

Of course no fan demands that, and some may moan if it is done, but a responsible owner would do it.

If we are to believe the losses SISU claim they have made then even if rent was free and match day costs were paid by ACL we still wouldn't have that £1.2m to spend on wages as we'd still be losing money.

 

[duffer]

Ignoring the usual council sycophants that trawl this site has this thread gone to plan?

Ignoring the resident moronic troll, please let us know.

 

[Grendel]

Hey, Grendel. Answer my question first. It's incredibly rude, answering a question with a question.

You're saying the Ricoh deal put others off. Where's your evidence?

It upset SISU so much that they didn't even make it an issue when they first took over - that's how much it bothered them.

Remind me, how many other buyers were standing alongside sisu when joes clock was ticking?

Remind me this time the club went into administration how many expressed an interest in purchase when the rental deal appeared more favourable?

If the latter is higher why given the club was in a far worse position?

 

[Grendel]

Ignoring the resident moronic troll, please let us know.

If next week we were back at the Ricoh and the consequences were;

ACL liquidation - all employees gone
Losses for the charity
Council in turmoil

Would you say yes as the club always comes first?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

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.

Are you still labouring under the misunderstanding that this has anything to do with rent?

SISU are seemingly saying that unfettered freehold is their condition for return.

As such, your incessant prattling on about rents is farcical as it's irrelevant. The fact that you actually researched other rents levied when you swallowed Fisher's 'average League One rent' is embarrassing, and I'd have thought even you would have realised, and moved the debate on by now

 

[dongonzalos]

For wanting people to take responsibility for their actions? I'd say that was already pretty grown up.

Is your definition of mature blaming everyone else?

I found that response quite ironic and somewhat amusing. Whilst sitting on my nursery chair asking my completely childish question of course.

 

[duffer]

Remind me, how many other buyers were standing alongside sisu when joes clock was ticking?

Remind me this time the club went into administration how many expressed an interest in purchase when the rental deal appeared more favourable?

If the latter is higher why given the club was in a far worse position?

That logic is utterly twisted. It presupposes that you know the motives of any purchasers or potential purchasers.

To you, it's all about the rent, so everything you look at is filtered through that prism. Even to the current owners it wasn't all about the rent for the first few years. It wasn't the rent that put us into £30-60m of debt, or made us pay more in wages than we were earning.

It's an obsession of yours, or more likely a handy tool for a wind up. I doubt even you believe what you're saying sometimes.

 

[duffer]

If next week we were back at the Ricoh and the consequences were;

ACL liquidation - all employees gone
Losses for the charity
Council in turmoil

Would you say yes as the club always comes first?

Me, personally, no. I wouldn't see either a charity or the taxpayer screwed over for the benefit of any football club. (Doubly so when it's not actually necessary, as in this case.)

Would you?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

That logic is utterly twisted. It presupposes that you know the motives of any purchasers or potential purchasers.

To you, it's all about the rent, so everything you look at is filtered through that prism. Even to the current owners it wasn't all about the rent for the first few years. It wasn't the rent that put us into £30-60m of debt, or made us pay more in wages than we were earning.

It's an obsession of yours, or more likely a handy tool for a wind up. I doubt even you believe what you're saying sometimes.

Its a preposterous line, and must be a wind up, I agree. The entirety of the rental payments was less than 10% of the liabilities at the time of administration. It's irrelevant to any new deal as SISU ate demanding freehold.

As such, it wasn't a significant part of the problem, and plays no role in any solution. I can think if nothing more irrelevant, and why it's bought up time and time again is astonishing

 

[Jack Griffin]

My advice, don't feed the troll.

 

[Grendel]

Me, personally, no. I wouldn't see either a charity or the taxpayer screwed over for the benefit of any football club. (Doubly so when it's not actually necessary, as in this case.)

Would you?

I couldn't care less as the only one if those i am interested in is the club - clearly you have other interests and concerns.

 

[Grendel]

My advice, don't feed the troll.

Lol the irony. A troll on SBT is clearly someone who wants the club in Coventry above anything else as opposed to someone who slavishly touts the ACL line and spouts the council mantra on a daily basis.

Comedy gold.

 

[Grendel]

Its a preposterous line, and must be a wind up, I agree. The entirety of the rental payments was less than 10% of the liabilities at the time of administration. It's irrelevant to any new deal as SISU ate demanding freehold.

As such, it wasn't a significant part of the problem, and plays no role in any solution. I can think if nothing more irrelevant, and why it's bought up time and time again is astonishing

Given you are PWKH's favourite poodle I'm sure you do find it astonishing. For the record, you have missed the point. This discussion centres around the rent deal prior to sisu and its contribution to wrecking the club under its former guise and also its deterrent to other owners than sisu.

Duffer believed the arrangement could be any fee and restriction on revenue and it wouldn't impact potential buyers. Given his clear lack of Interest in the club and mid peculiar obsession with all things ACL this isn't a surprise.

 

[skybluefred]

They can be judged on what they do now with the caveat that the Richardson era has completely hamstrung them. Completely. They're like a boxer with an arm tied behind their back.

Sorry I cannot agree with either of you on this. Sisu by the very nature of their business are expert's at
"Due Diligence" and in the case of CCFC they made a catastrophic mistake. There plan was obviously to
get a rapid promotion back to the Premiership and then sell on at huge profit.They started off by employing
the wrong manager,then compounded it by throwing money at him to spend on players who in turn where useless.

In an attempt to rescue themselves they then withdrew all team funding,and with another useless manager at
the helm they proceeded to sell each and every player they could get a fee for. You've guessed the next bit
by now--YES THEY got us RELEGATED.Now it may come as quite a shock to you BUT CCC/ACL/Higgs played
NO PART in this fiasco it was all down to Sisu and their total abject failure at management of the Football Club.

In my book they took us the the Cobblers in an attempt to hide from the utter fiasco they have made of CCFC.

 

[limoncello]

Sisu were sold a pup. The clock was ticking. I bet they rue the day.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Given youu are PWKH's favourite poodle I'm sure you do find it astonishing. For the record, you have missed the point. This discussion centres around the rent deal prior to sisu and its contribution to wrecking the club under its former guise and also its deterrent to other owners than sisu.

Duffer believed the arrangement could be any fee and restriction on revenue and it wouldn't impact potential buyers. Given his clear lack of Interest in the club and mid peculiar obsession with all things ACL this isn't a surprise.

Do you agree with my point above, that within the context of the current owners tenure, the rent issue is irrelevant, though?

 

[wingy]

Sisu were sold a pup. The clock was ticking. I bet they rue the day.

I wonder how expensive we were In comparison to Saints ,Villa ,Man City?

Given the comparative level of investment required maybe those teams had a lucky escape? conversely maybe they did,which in Itself opens the question what would have been their motivation ?

 

[Grendel]

Do you agree with my point above, that within the context of the current owners tenure, the rent issue is irrelevant, though?

Well clearly now, yes.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

i sometimes wonder if there is a parrallel world accountancy forum out there...where all they do all day is talk about the left back at their local club, or what formation their local team should play on saturday.

Time and time again "Spreadsheet" or "EBITDA" threads ruined by football talk

Ahhh, EBITDA.....a man speaking my language!

 

[cloughie]

They can be judged on what they do now with the caveat that the Richardson era has completely hamstrung them. Completely. They're like a boxer with an arm tied behind their back.

Richardson stole our ground, yet sisu were never hamstrung, they took on what they took on with the so called money to finance the the situation .....

Yet they have failed miserably, with possibly worse management

 

[Ashdown1]

Well clearly now, yes.

You are his bitch Grendel !!